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.
> If SSL compression is busted on base backups, it's equally busted on
> regular connection and replication streams. People do ask for
> compression on that (in particular I've had a lot of requests when it
> comes to replication), and our response there has traditionally been
> "ssl compression"...
Agreed. I think our answer there was always a bit of a cop out...
Andres
