On Jul 17, 2015 4:31 PM, "Andrew Dunstan" <and...@dunslane.net> wrote: > > > On 07/17/2015 10:11 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >> >> >> On 07/17/2015 08:20 AM, Shulgin, Oleksandr wrote: >> >> >>> > This patch makes Postgres core more complex >>> >>> Yes, it does. But, that was not the purpose, obviously. :-) >>> >>> > while not really solving the problem in Javascript. >>> >>> It still allows for less risk of silent data corruption on the js side. >>> >>> >> >> I have already pointed out how this patch is fundamentally broken. You can achieve your aims by a fairly small amount of code inside your logical decoder, and with no core code changes whatsoever. So I'm puzzled why we are even still debating this broken design. > > > > Incidentally, this doesn't look acceptable anyway: >> >> ! es->json_cxt.value(&es->json_cxt, num, JSONTYPE_NUMERIC, >> ! NUMERICOID, 1702 /* numeric_out */); > > > We don't hardcode function oids elsewhere. So this is also something that makes the patch unacceptable.
Well, good to know (I believe I've asked about this in the first mail specifically). Is there any way a built-in function oid would change/differ on different server versions? What would be the recommended way to do this? -- Alex
