| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dave Cramer <davecramer(at)gmail(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(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: | 2023-10-06 11:12:24 |
| Message-ID: | 70489c13-2931-e1e3-8688-48fd1847157d@eisentraut.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 04.10.23 21:10, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 10:17 AM Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> wrote:
>> I think intuitively, this facility ought to work like client_encoding.
>
> I hadn't really considered client_encoding as a precedent for this
> setting. A lot of my discomfort with the proposed mechanism also
> applies to client_encoding, namely, suppose you call some function or
> procedure or whatever and it changes client_encoding on your behalf
> and now your communication with the server is all screwed up. That
> seems very unpleasant. Yet it's also existing behavior. I think one
> could conclude on these facts either that (a) client_encoding is fine
> and the problems with controlling behavior using that kind of
> mechanism are mostly theoretical or (b) that we messed up with
> client_encoding and shouldn't add any more mistakes of the same ilk or
> (c) that we should really be looking at redesigning the way
> client_encoding works, too.
Yeah I agree with all three of these points, but I don't have a strong
opinion which is the best one.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Langote | 2023-10-06 11:27:12 | Re: remaining sql/json patches |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2023-10-06 11:11:24 | Re: Request for comment on setting binary format output per session |