From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Dave Cramer <davecramer(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Request for comment on setting binary format output per session |
Date: | 2023-03-28 23:01:10 |
Message-ID: | 3658a1f53847a779eedf98a152107fc2a62015cc.camel@j-davis.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2023-03-28 at 10:22 -0400, Dave Cramer wrote:
> OK, IIUC what you are proposing here is that there would be a
> separate pool for
> database, user, and OIDs. This doesn't seem too flexible. For
> instance if I create a UDT and then want it to be returned
> as binary then I have to reconfigure the pool to be able to accept a
> new list of OID's.
There are two ways that I could imagine the connection pool working:
1. Accept whatever clients connect, and pass along the binary_formats
setting to the outbound (server) connection. The downside here is that
if you have many different clients (or different versions) that have
different binary_formats settings, then it creates too many pools and
doesn't share well enough.
2. Some kind of configuration setting (or maybe it can be done
automatically) that organizes based on a common subset of binary
formats that many clients can understand.
These can evolve once the protocol extension is in place.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2023-03-28 23:22:33 | Re: Why mark empty pages all visible? |
Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2023-03-28 22:48:18 | Re: running logical replication as the subscription owner |