Re: Binary support for pgoutput plugin

Hi,

On 2019-06-05 19:05:05 -0400, Dave Cramer wrote:
> I am curious why you are "strongly" opposed however. We already have the
> information. Adding doesn't seem onerous.

(thought I'd already replied with this)

The problem is that I don't recognize a limiting principle:

If we want NOT NULL information for clients, why don't we include the
underlying types for arrays, and the fields in composite types? What
about foreign keys? And unique keys?

And then we suddenly need tracking for all these, so we don't always
send out that information when we previously already did - and in some
of the cases there's no infrastructure for that.

I just don't quite buy that the output plugin build for pg's logical
replication needs is a good place to include a continually increasing
amount of metadata that logical replication doesn't need. That's going
to add overhead and make the code more complicated.

Greetings,

Andres Freund