On 03-03-2016 14:44, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de
> <mailto:andres@anarazel.de>> wrote:
>
> On 2016-03-03 18:31:03 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > I think we want it at protocol level rather than pg_basebackup level.
>
> I think we may want both eventually, but I do agree that protocol level
> has a lot higher "priority" than that. Something like protocol level
> compression has a bit of different tradeofs than compressing base
> backups, and it's nice not to compress, uncompress, compress again.
>
>
>
> Yeah, good point, we definitely want both. Based on the field experience
> I've had (which might differ from others), having it protocol level
> would help more people tough, so should be higher prio.
>
Some time ago, I started a thread [1] to implement compression at
protocol level. The use cases are data load over slow links and reduce
bandwidth consumption during replication.
At that time, there wasn't a consensus about which compression algorithm
to choose. After the WAL compression feature, I think we can do some POC
with LZ compression (that is already available in common).
I'll try to update the code and do some benchmarks.
[1] http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/4FD9698F.2090407@timbira.com
-- Euler Taveira Timbira - http://www.timbira.com.br/ PostgreSQL: Consultoria, Desenvolvimento,
Suporte24x7 e Treinamento