On 03-03-2016 14:44, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de > <mailto:and...@anarazel.de>> wrote: > > On 2016-03-03 18:31:03 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > I think we want it at protocol level rather than pg_basebackup level. > > I think we may want both eventually, but I do agree that protocol level > has a lot higher "priority" than that. Something like protocol level > compression has a bit of different tradeofs than compressing base > backups, and it's nice not to compress, uncompress, compress again. > > > > Yeah, good point, we definitely want both. Based on the field experience > I've had (which might differ from others), having it protocol level > would help more people tough, so should be higher prio. > Some time ago, I started a thread [1] to implement compression at protocol level. The use cases are data load over slow links and reduce bandwidth consumption during replication.
At that time, there wasn't a consensus about which compression algorithm to choose. After the WAL compression feature, I think we can do some POC with LZ compression (that is already available in common). I'll try to update the code and do some benchmarks. [1] http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/4fd9698f.2090...@timbira.com -- Euler Taveira Timbira - http://www.timbira.com.br/ PostgreSQL: Consultoria, Desenvolvimento, Suporte 24x7 e Treinamento -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
