Re: pg_basebackup compression TODO item
| От | Benedikt Grundmann |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: pg_basebackup compression TODO item |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CADbMkNN-1-r=FJq1z8ibdY0KRH10=Yp5J1fRd5JYuTHSoGgBNw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: pg_basebackup compression TODO item (Euler Taveira <euler@timbira.com.br>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 7:36 PM, Euler Taveira <euler@timbira.com.br> wrote:
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 to protocol level compression. In our case the primary reasons why we use thirdparty magic networking appliances as a middle man between our offices is to compress postgres network traffic (which is very compress-able that is > 95% reduction is normal). And the presence of those devices introduces all kinds of weird additional error cases and administrative overhead (+ of course cost). So I would personally consider protocol level compression to be bigger killer feature than any other feature that has made itself into postgres since the 9.2 release. But of course YMMV ;-)
[1] http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/4FD9698F.2090407@timbira.com
--
Euler Taveira Timbira - http://www.timbira.com.br/
PostgreSQL: Consultoria, Desenvolvimento, Suporte 24x7 e Treinamento
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: