On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> On 03/09/10 18:53, David Blewett wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Tom Lane<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>>
>>> IOW, what I'd like to see is protocol extensions that allow an external
>>> copy of rsync to be invoked; not build in rsync, or tar, or anything
>>> else that we could get off-the-shelf.
>>
>> Personally, I would love to see protocol-level compression added.
>> (Yes, going over a compressed SSH tunnel works well, but in general
>> isn't user-friendly.)
>>
>> Josh: we talked on IRC awhile back and you mentioned that CMD had
>> added this in Mammoth? Would you be interested in having someone get
>> that integrated back into the community?
>
> There's a recent thread on pgsql-general about just that:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2010-08/msg00003.php
>
> I agree with Tom's comments there, I'd like to have something to
> enable/disable SSL compression rather than implement our own. There was some
> discussion that it might not be available on JDBC SSL implementations, but
> if it's done in our protocol, you'll need changes to the client to make it
> work anyway.
While I agree that combining SSL with compression is a great win, I'm
not sold on Tom's argument that compression is only needed in WAN
situations. I've seen great benefit to using an SSH tunnel with
compression over LAN connections (100 and 1000 mbps). At work, we do
have a private WAN that it would be nice to be able to use compression
with no encryption on. I think it's a general-use thing. While I know
it's not the best argument, MySQL does provide compression at the
connection level.
David Blewett