Re: libpq compression
От | Tomas Vondra |
---|---|
Тема | Re: libpq compression |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1f76b4b8-3bff-17af-ef63-872190411a60@enterprisedb.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: libpq compression (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: libpq compression
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/22/20 8:03 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com> writes: >> I don't see aby benchmark results in this thread, allowing me to make >> that conclusion, and I find it hard to believe that 200MB/client is a >> sensible trade-off. > >> It assumes you have that much memory, and it may allow easy DoS attack >> (although maybe it's not worse than e.g. generating a lot of I/O or >> running expensive function). Maybe allowing limiting the compression >> level / decompression buffer size in postgresql.conf would be enough. Or >> maybe allow disabling such compression algorithms altogether. > > The link Ken pointed at suggests that restricting the window size to > 8MB is a common compromise. It's not clear to me what that does to > the achievable compression ratio. Even 8MB could be an annoying cost > if it's being paid per-process, on both the server and client sides. > Possibly, but my understanding is that's merely a recommendation for the decoder library (e.g. libzstd), and it's not clear to me if/how that relates to the compression level or how to influence it. From the results shared by Daniil, the per-client overhead seems way higher than 8MB, so either libzstd does not respect this recommendation or maybe there's something else going on. regards -- Tomas Vondra EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: