Greg Copeland wrote: > On Tue, 2002-12-10 at 11:25, Al Sutton wrote: > > Would it be possible to make compression an optional thing, with the default > > being off? > > > > I'm not sure. You'd have to ask Command Prompt (Mammoth) or wait to see > what appears. What I originally had envisioned was a per database and > user permission model which would better control use. Since compression > can be rather costly for some use cases, I also envisioned it being > negotiated where only the user/database combo with permission would be > able to turn it on. I do recall that compression negotiation is part of > the Mammoth implementation but I don't know if it's a simple capability > negotiation or part of a larger scheme.
I haven't heard anything about them contributing it. Doesn't mean it will not happen, just that I haven't heard it. I am not excited about per-db/user compression because of the added complexity of setting it up, and even set up, I can see cases where some queries would want it, and others not. I can see using GUC to control this. If you enable it and the client doesn't support it, it is a no-op. We have per-db and per-user settings, so GUC would allow such control if you wish. Ideally, it would be a tri-valued parameter, that is ON, OFF, or AUTO, meaning it would determine if there was value in the compression and do it only when it would help. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
