On 04.10.23 18:26, Merlin Moncure wrote:
On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 9:17 AM Peter Eisentraut <pe...@eisentraut.org
<mailto:pe...@eisentraut.org>> wrote:
I think intuitively, this facility ought to work like client_encoding.
There, the client declares its capabilities, and the server has to
format the output according to the client's capabilities. That works,
and it also works through connection poolers. (It is a GUC.) If we
can
model it like that as closely as possible, then we have a chance of
getting it working reliably. Notably, the value space for
client_encoding is a globally known fixed list of strings. We need to
figure out what is the right way to globally identify types, like
either
by fully-qualified name, by base name, some combination, how does it
work with extensions, or do we need a new mechanism like UUIDs. I
think
that is something we need to work out, no matter which protocol
mechanism we end up using.
Fantastic write up.
> globally known fixed list of strings
Are you suggesting that we would have a client/server negotiation such
as, 'jdbc<version>', 'all', etc where that would identify which types
are done which way? If you did that, why would we need to promote
names/uuid to permanent global space?
No, I don't think I meant anything like that.
