| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
| 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: | 2023-10-04 19:10:05 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZ8r8xb_73WzKHGb00cV3tpHV_U0RHuzzMFKvLepdu2Jw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | a.rybakina | 2023-10-04 19:19:59 | Re: POC, WIP: OR-clause support for indexes |
| Previous Message | Dave Cramer | 2023-10-04 18:30:45 | Re: Request for comment on setting binary format output per session |