| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Dave Cramer <davecramer(at)gmail(dot)com>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Binary support for pgoutput plugin |
| Date: | 2020-07-14 23:46:52 |
| Message-ID: | 3023156.1594770412@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> There's also send/receive functions that do not work across systems,
> unfortunately :(. In particular record and array send functions embed
> type oids and their receive functions verify that they match the local
> system. Which basically means that if there's any difference in oid
> assignment order between two systems that they will not allow to
> send/recv such data between them :(.
It's not a problem particularly for built-in types, but I agree
there's an issue for extension types.
> I've several times suggested that we should remove those type checks in
> recv, as they afaict don't provide any actual value. But unfortunately
> there hasn't been much response to that. See e.g.
> https://postgr.es/m/20160426001713.hbqdiwvf4mkzkg55%40alap3.anarazel.de
Maybe we could compromise by omitting the check if both OIDs are
outside the built-in range?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-07-15 00:09:11 | Re: Cache lookup errors with functions manipulation object addresses |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2020-07-14 23:17:10 | Re: Postgres is not able to handle more than 4k tables!? |