| From: | "Shulgin, Oleksandr" <oleksandr(dot)shulgin(at)zalando(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Aleksander Alekseev <a(dot)alekseev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | Shay Rojansky <roji(at)roji(dot)org>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Wire protocol compression |
| Date: | 2016-04-21 13:10:58 |
| Message-ID: | CACACo5TW86H_+eMB=Pj1pNWdPKoOb7icTJDj-1vqjoGs7A5CGQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 3:04 PM, Aleksander Alekseev <
a(dot)alekseev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
> > I guess since the usual answer for compression was "use what SSL
> > provides you for free", it's rather unlikely that someone bothered to
> > make a proxy just for that purpose, and really, a proxy is just
> > another moving part in your setup: not everyone will be thrilled to
> > add that.
>
> It just doesn't sound like a feature that should be implemented
> separately for every single application that uses TCP. Granted TCP proxy
> is not the most convenient way to solve a task. Maybe it could be
> implemented in OpenVPN
Which is another moving part with its own setup and maintenance overhead.
> or on Linux TCP/IP stack level.
>
Yes, but if you want to have both compression and encryption it is crucial
to apply compression *before* encryption and I don't see how this can
happen with this approach.
--
Alex
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Aleksander Alekseev | 2016-04-21 13:17:46 | Re: Wire protocol compression |
| Previous Message | Aleksander Alekseev | 2016-04-21 13:04:07 | Re: Wire protocol compression |