Re: Request for comment on setting binary format output per session

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, 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: 2023-03-22 09:12:12
Message-ID: b5fde33a-524a-682d-e6bc-4afdbaccfba4@enterprisedb.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 04.03.23 17:35, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Thu, 2023-03-02 at 09:13 -0500, Dave Cramer wrote:
>> I'd like to open up this discussion again so that we can
>> move forward. I prefer the GUC as it is relatively simple and as
>> Peter mentioned it works, but I'm not married to the idea.
>
> It's not very friendly to extensions, where the types are not
> guaranteed to have stable OIDs. Did you consider any proposals that
> work with type names?

Sending type names is kind of useless if what comes back with the result
(RowDescription) are OIDs anyway.

The client would presumably have some code like

if (typeoid == 555)
parseThatType();

So it already needs to know about the OIDs of all the types it is
interested in.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2023-03-22 09:14:28 Re: Request for comment on setting binary format output per session
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2023-03-22 09:00:45 Re: Transparent column encryption