From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Mitar <mmitar(at)gmail(dot)com>, f(dot)venchiarutti(at)ocado(dot)com, Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>, "pgsql-generallists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Automatically parsing in-line composite types |
Date: | 2019-10-30 22:41:05 |
Message-ID: | 20191030224105.dwej53kaklipfz5w@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Hi,
On 2019-10-29 14:33:00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Mitar <mmitar(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > I think RowDescription should be extended to provide full recursive
> > metadata about all data types. That would be the best way to do it.
>
> [ shrug... ] In a world where stability of the wire protocol were
> of zero value, maybe we would do that. In the real world, don't
> hold your breath.
Hm. Wouldn't it be fairly easy to allow the client to specify how much
metadata they'd want? I.e. opt-in into getting more complete metadata?
Presumably a lot of clients/applications wouldn't want the server to do
the extra work / use bandwidth for the full details anyway, so making a
more expansive RowDescription be explicitly opt-in would be good, even
if there were zero compatibility concerns.
There's different ways we could do the opt-in. We could use the "_pq_."
startup option stuff to opt in, we could make it an optional parameter
to D messages (it'd be mildly hacky because unfortunately
describe_target is not a counted text), we could use an additional
describe_type etc...
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Brannen | 2019-10-30 22:50:50 | RE: Upgrade procedure |
Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2019-10-30 22:07:32 | Re: Automatically parsing in-line composite types |