On Thu, 2002-03-14 at 14:29, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> This may be of value for users with low bandwidth connectivity to their > >> servers or where bandwidth may already be at a premium. > > > But don't slow links do the compression themselves, like PPP over a > > modem? > > Even if the link doesn't compress, shoving the feature into PG itself > isn't necessarily the answer. I'd suggest running such a connection > through an ssh tunnel, which would give you encryption as well as > compression. > > regards, tom lane
Couldn't the same be said for SSL support? I'd also like to point out that it's *possible* that this could also be a speed boost under certain work loads where extra CPU is available as less data would have to be transfered through the OS, networking layers, and device drivers. Until zero copy transfers becomes common on all platforms for all devices, I would think that it's certainly *possible* that this *could* offer a possible improvement...well, perhaps a break even at any rate... Such claims, again, given specific workloads for compressed file systems are not unheard off as less device I/O has to take place. Greg
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
