Re: Extensibility of the PostgreSQL wire protocol

On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 10:29 AM Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:

>
> On 2/11/21 10:06 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> >> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 9:42 AM Jonah H. Harris <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> >>> As Jan said in his last email, they're not proposing all the different
> >>> aspects needed. In fact, nothing has actually been proposed yet. This
> >>> is an entirely philosophical debate. I don't even know what's being
> >>> proposed at this point - I just know it *could* be useful. Let's just
> >>> wait and see what is actually proposed before shooting it down, yes?
> >> I don't think I'm trying to shoot anything down, because as I said, I
> >> like extensibility and am generally in favor of it. Rather, I'm
> >> expressing a concern which seems to me to be justified, based on what
> >> was posted. I'm sorry that my tone seems to have aggravated you, but
> >> it wasn't intended to do so.
> > Likewise, the point I was trying to make is that a "pluggable wire
> > protocol" is only a tiny part of what would be needed to have a credible
> > MySQL, Oracle, or whatever clone. There are large semantic differences
> > from those products; there are maintenance issues arising from the fact
> > that we whack structures like parse trees around all the time; and so on.
> > Maybe there is some useful thing that can be accomplished here, but we
> > need to consider the bigger picture rather than believing (without proof)
> > that a few hook variables will be enough to do anything.
>
>
>
> Yeah. I think we'd need a fairly fully worked implementation to see
> where it goes. Is Amazon going to release (under TPL) its TDS
> implementation of this? That might go a long way to convincing me this
> is worth considering.
>
> Everything is planned to be released under the Apache 2.0 license so
people are free to do with it as they choose.