From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
Cc: | Dave Cramer <davecramer(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Request for comment on setting binary format output per session |
Date: | 2023-03-05 00:06:58 |
Message-ID: | 3046005.1677974818@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> On Sat, 2023-03-04 at 18:04 -0500, Dave Cramer wrote:
>> Most of the clients know how to decode the builtin types. I'm not
>> sure there is a use case for binary encode types that the clients
>> don't have a priori knowledge of.
> The client could, in theory, have a priori knowledge of a non-builtin
> type.
I don't see what's "in theory" about that. There seems plenty of
use for binary I/O of, say, PostGIS types. Even for built-in types,
do we really want to encourage people to hard-wire their OIDs into
applications?
I don't see a big problem with driving this off a GUC, but I think
it should be a list of type names not OIDs. We already have plenty
of precedent for dealing with that sort of thing; see search_path
for the canonical example. IIRC, there's similar caching logic
for temp_tablespaces.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2023-03-05 00:10:36 | Re: Add standard collation UNICODE |
Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2023-03-04 23:58:19 | Re: Request for comment on setting binary format output per session |