Re: libpq compression

On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> wrote:
> On Jun25, 2012, at 21:21 , Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
>> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
>>> Or that it takes less code/generates cleaner code...
>>
>> So we're talking about some LZO things such as snappy from google, and
>> that would be another run time dependency IIUC.
>>
>> I think it's time to talk about fastlz:
>>
>>  http://fastlz.org/
>>  http://code.google.com/p/fastlz/source/browse/trunk/fastlz.c
>>
>>  551 lines of C code under MIT license, works also under windows
>>
>> I guess it would be easy (and safe) enough to embed in our tree should
>> we decide going this way.
>
> Agreed. If we extend the protocol to support compression, and not rely
> on SSL, then let's pick one of these LZ77-style compressors, and let's
> integrate it into our tree.
>
> We should then also make it possible to enable compression only for
> the server -> client direction. Since those types of compressions are
> usually pretty easy to decompress, that reduces the amount to work
> non-libpq clients have to put in to take advantage of compression.

+1

>
> best regards,
> Florian Pflug
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers