Albe Laurenz wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > But in any case, my objection is that there's no adequate use-case
> > for this GUC, because it's much more sensible to set it from the
> client
> > side. We have too many GUCs already --- Josh B regularly goes on the
> > warpath looking for ones we can remove. This one should never get in
> > there to start with.
>
> I agree that it is sensible to have the setting on the client,
> and that there should not be too many GUCs.
>
> >> I could go and try to convince Npgsql and JDBC to accept patches to
> >> do that on the client side, but that would be more effort than I
> >> want to invest. But then there's still closed source software like
> >> Devart dotConnect...
> >
> > This argument reads as nothing except "I'm too lazy to solve it right,
> > so I want you to accept a wrong solution".
>
> In a way, yes, except that I think that "wrong" is exaggerated.
> As DBA I like to have an option to control things from the server
> end -- if that's laziness, so be it.
>
> So, should I forget about the GUC or is anybody going to back me?
>
> I'd still be willing to write a patch for a client-only solution.
Agreed. There is clearly a win in turning off SSL compression for
certain workloads, and if people think the client is the right location,
then let's do it there.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +