Re: Proposal to allow setting cursor options on Portals

On Sun, 14 Dec 2025 at 09:04, Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl> wrote:

> On Sun, 14 Dec 2025 at 14:49, Dave Cramer <davecramer(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Here I was thinking that binary was the one that did make sense. The
> pgjdbc driver would like the results back in binary, I believe others would
> as well.
>
> I agree drivers would like binary results back, but it's unclear to me
> how CURSOR_OPT_BINARY is different from setting the result column
> format codes to an array of a single 1? That should also change all
> columns to be binary right?
>

Fair point.

>
> > Fair, but from my POV, we are only concerned with Postgres. I would say
> it's up to the other implementations to deal with incompatibilities.
>
> I get what you mean, but I feel like we should at least be concerned
> with popular ecosystem tools like, pgbouncer and pgpool. But then it
> quickly becomes an exercise in where we draw the line, what about
> postgres forks like Yugabyte? Or things very similar like cockroachdb.
> Both of those are distributed, and probably don't use our LSNs. So as
> a concrete example, if we add LSNs to the protocol, it would be nice
> to work with their version too if it's not too much effort. e.g. by
> specifing a length for the commit id in the protocol instead of
> forcing it at the protocol level to always be a 64bit integer.
>

It would make sense to be forward looking here in the event that Postgres
ever has wider LSN's agreed.

Dave