On 15.06.2012 18:28, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
> <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>> On 15.06.2012 17:58, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 10:56 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
>>> <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You could write a dummy SSL implementation that only does compression,
>>>> not
>>>> encryption. Ie. only support the 'null' encryption method. That should be
>>>> about the same amount of work as writing an implementation of compression
>>>> using whatever protocol we would decide to use for negotiating the
>>>> compression.
>>>
>>> Sure, but then what do you do if you actually want both?
>>
>> Umm, then you use a real SSL libray, not the dummy one?
>
> But (in this scenario, and so far nobody has proven it to be wrong)
> there exists no real SSL library that does support compression.
Oh, I see. Then you're screwed. But I think the right solution to that
is to write/extend a Java SSL implementation to support compression, not
to invent our own in PostgreSQL. The JDK is open source nowadays.
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
