On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 at 17:11, Jelte Fennema <postg...@jeltef.nl> wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 at 21:08, Dave Cramer <davecra...@gmail.com> wrote: > > So if we use <schema>.<type> would it be possible to have something like > <builtin> which represents a set of well known types? > > My goal here is to reduce the overhead of naming all the types the > client wants in binary. The list of well known types is pretty long. > > Additionally we could have a shorthand for removing a well known type. > > You're only setting this once in the lifetime of the connection right, > Correct > i.e. right at the start (although pgbouncer could set it once per > transaction in the worst case). It seems like it shouldn't really > matter much to optimize the size of the "SET format_binary=..." > command, I'd expect it to be at most 1 kilobyte. I'm not super opposed > to having a shorthand for some of the most commonly wanted built-in > types, but then we'd need to decide on what those are, which would add > even more discussion/bikeshedding to this thread. I'm not sure the win > in size is worth that effort. > It's worth the effort if we use schema.typename, if we use oids then I'm not that invested in this approach. Dave
