From: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Dave Cramer <davecramer(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Binary support for pgoutput plugin |
Date: | 2019-06-04 22:05:02 |
Message-ID: | 20190604220502.GV12249@fetter.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 04:55:33PM -0400, Dave Cramer wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 at 16:46, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2019-06-04 16:39:32 -0400, Dave Cramer wrote:
> > > On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 at 16:30, Andres Freund <
> > andres(dot)freund(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > There's also no reason that I am aware that binary outputs can't be
> > > > > supported.
> > > >
> > > > Well, it *does* increase version dependencies, and does make
> > replication
> > > > more complicated, because type oids etc cannot be relied to be the same
> > > > on source and target side.
> > > >
> > > I was about to agree with this but if the type oids change from source
> > > to target you still can't decode the text version properly. Unless I
> > > mis-understand something here ?
> >
> > The text format doesn't care about oids. I don't see how it'd be a
> > problem? Note that some people *intentionally* use different types from
> > source to target system when logically replicating. So you can't rely on
> > the target table's types under any circumstance.
> >
> > I think you really have to use the textual type which we already write
> > out (cf logicalrep_write_typ()) to call the binary input functions. And
> > you can send only data as binary that's from builtin types - otherwise
> > there's no guarantee at all that the target system has something
> > compatible. And even if you just assumed that all extensions etc are
> > present, you can't transport arrays / composite types in binary: For
> > hard to discern reasons we a) embed type oids in them b) verify them. b)
> > won't ever work for non-builtin types, because oids are assigned
> > dynamically.
> >
>
> I figured arrays and UDT's would be problematic.
Would it make sense to work toward a binary format that's not
architecture-specific? I recall from COPY that our binary format is
not standardized across, for example, big- and little-endian machines.
Best,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2019-06-04 22:08:17 | Re: Binary support for pgoutput plugin |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2019-06-04 21:59:52 | Re: Sort support for macaddr8 |