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 pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073