From: | Jacob Burroughs <jburroughs(at)instructure(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: libpq compression (part 3) |
Date: | 2024-05-15 16:24:27 |
Message-ID: | CACzsqT5dSZGzY5cmO88jiCd+T_B1xUCi1LWk6iXsd-Q9Xc=KXA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 8:38 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> I agree with that goal, but I'm somewhat confused by how your proposal
> achieves it. You had
> libpq_compression=lzma:client_to_server=off;gzip:server_to_client=off,
> so how do we parse that? Is that two completely separate
> specifications, one for lzma and one for gzip, and each of those has
> one option which is set to off? And then they are separated from each
> other by a semicolon? That actually does make sense, and I think it
> may do a better job allowing for compression options than my proposal,
> but it also seems a bit weird, because client_to_server and
> server_to_client are not really compression options at all. They're
> framing when this compression specification applies, rather than what
> it does when it applies. In a way it's a bit like the fact that you
> can prefix a pg_basebackup's --compress option with client- or server-
> to specify where the compression should happen. But we can't quite
> reuse that idea here, because in that case there's no question of
> doing it in both places, whereas here, you might want one thing for
> upstream and another thing for downstream.
Your interpretation is correct, but I don't disagree that it ends up
feeling confusing.
> I'm not a fan of three settings; I could go with two settings, one for
> each direction, and if you want both you have to set both. Or, another
> idea, what if we just separated the two directions with a slash,
> SEND/RECEIVE, and if there's no slash, then it applies to both
> directions. So you could say
> connection_compression='gzip:level=9/lzma' or whatever.
>
> But now I'm wondering whether these options should really be symmetric
> on the client and server sides? Isn't it for the server just to
> specify a list of acceptable algorithms, and the client to set the
> compression options? If both sides are trying to set the compression
> level, for example, who wins?
Compression options really only ever apply to the side doing the
compressing, and at least as I had imagined things each party
(client/server) only used its own level/other compression params.
That leaves me thinking, maybe we really want two independent GUCs,
one for "what algorithms are enabled/negotiable" and one for "how
should I configure my compressors" and then we reduce the dimensions
we are trying to shove into one GUC and each one ends up with a very
clear purpose:
connection_compression=(yes|no|alg1,alg2:server_to_client=alg1,alg2:client_to_server=alg3)
connection_compression_opts=gzip:level=2
--
Jacob Burroughs | Staff Software Engineer
E: jburroughs(at)instructure(dot)com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2024-05-15 16:31:29 | Re: libpq compression (part 3) |
Previous Message | Sriram RK | 2024-05-15 16:22:10 | Re: AIX support |