Re: Extensibility of the PostgreSQL wire protocol

On 2/11/21 10:06 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 9:42 AM Jonah H. Harris <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> As Jan said in his last email, they're not proposing all the different
>>> aspects needed. In fact, nothing has actually been proposed yet. This
>>> is an entirely philosophical debate. I don't even know what's being
>>> proposed at this point - I just know it *could* be useful. Let's just
>>> wait and see what is actually proposed before shooting it down, yes?
>> I don't think I'm trying to shoot anything down, because as I said, I
>> like extensibility and am generally in favor of it. Rather, I'm
>> expressing a concern which seems to me to be justified, based on what
>> was posted. I'm sorry that my tone seems to have aggravated you, but
>> it wasn't intended to do so.
> Likewise, the point I was trying to make is that a "pluggable wire
> protocol" is only a tiny part of what would be needed to have a credible
> MySQL, Oracle, or whatever clone. There are large semantic differences
> from those products; there are maintenance issues arising from the fact
> that we whack structures like parse trees around all the time; and so on.
> Maybe there is some useful thing that can be accomplished here, but we
> need to consider the bigger picture rather than believing (without proof)
> that a few hook variables will be enough to do anything.

Yeah. I think we'd need a fairly fully worked implementation to see
where it goes. Is Amazon going to release (under TPL) its TDS
implementation of this? That might go a long way to convincing me this
is worth considering.

cheers

andrew

--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com