Re: [PATCH] COPY .. COMPRESSED
Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com>
From: Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, PostgreSQL-Dev <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2013-01-16T02:44:45Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 7:46 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Compressing every small packet seems like it'd be overkill and might >> surprise people by actually reducing performance in the case of lots of >> small requests. > > Yeah, proper selection and integration of a compression method would be > critical, which is one reason that I'm not suggesting a plugin for this. > You couldn't expect any-random-compressor to work well. I think zlib > would be okay though when making use of its stream compression features. > The key thing there is to force a stream buffer flush (too lazy to look > up exactly what zlib calls it, but they have the concept) exactly when > we're about to do a flush to the socket. That way we get cross-packet > compression but don't have a problem with the compressor failing to send > the last partial message when we need it to. Just a "stream flush bit" (or stream reset bit) on the packet header would do. First packet on any stream would be marked, and that's it.