On 2016-03-03 18:44:24 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Andres Freund <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.
Agreed. But then our priorities are not necessary the implementers, and
I don't think there's strong enough architectural reasons to only accept
protocol level for now...
Andres
