Dave Cramer
On Sat, 4 Mar 2023 at 11:35, Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> 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? > I had not. 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. Dave > > Regards, > Jeff Davis > >
