On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 12:48:24PM +0200, Florian Pflug wrote:
> > Yeah, but that alone is IMO a rather big blocker for claiming that
> > this is the only way to do it :( And I think the fact that that
> > wikipedia page doesn't list any other ones, is a sign that there might
> > not be a lot of other choices out there in reality - expecially not
> > opensource…
>
> Hm, but things get even harder for the JDBC and .NET folks if we go
> with a third-party compression method. Or would we require that the
> existence of a free Java (and maybe .NET) implementation of such a
> method would be an absolute must?
>
> The way I see it, if we use SSL-based compression then non-libpq clients
> there's at least a chance of those clients being able to use it easily
> (if their SSL implementation supports it). If we go with a third-party
> compression method, they *all* need to add yet another dependency, or may
> even need to re-implement the compression method in their implementation
> language of choice.
Does OpenSSL use hardware acceleration for its compression? I know it
often does for encryption --- that would be a big reason to do
compression at the SSL layer.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
