Re: Wire protocol compression

From: "Shulgin, Oleksandr" <oleksandr(dot)shulgin(at)zalando(dot)de>
To: Aleksander Alekseev <a(dot)alekseev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Cc: Shay Rojansky <roji(at)roji(dot)org>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Wire protocol compression
Date: 2016-04-21 12:35:42
Message-ID: CACACo5QabX=RRT8-wdq7+Mbx+zEc6bEmY8UReBAc=eGtLUGhfQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Aleksander Alekseev <
a(dot)alekseev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:

> > Does it make sense to you guys to discuss compression outside of TLS?
> > There are potentially huge bandwidth savings which could benefit both
> > WAN and non-WAN scenarios, and decoupling this problem from TLS would
> > make it both accessible to everyone (assuming PostgreSQL clients
> > follow). It would be a protocol change though.
>
> I personally don't think it's something that should be implemented in
> PostgreSQL core. As a third-party TCP-proxy (on both client and server
> sides) with gzip/lz4 support perhaps. I'll be not surprised if it turns
> out that such projects already exist.
>

Hm, did you see this recent discussion on -hackers:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAMkU=1zt9cjaQjVYAmywcP9iyxMJxFBUaVeB1eiaqBP=gejvDg(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com#CAMkU=1zt9cjaQjVYAmywcP9iyxMJxFBUaVeB1eiaqBP=gejvDg@mail.gmail.com
?

I guess since the usual answer for compression was "use what SSL provides
you for free", it's rather unlikely that someone bothered to make a proxy
just for that purpose, and really, a proxy is just another moving part in
your setup: not everyone will be thrilled to add that.

--
Alex

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2016-04-21 12:44:54 Re: Optimization for updating foreign tables in Postgres FDW
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2016-04-21 12:32:17 Re: Timeline following for logical slots