Re: Options OUTPUT_PLUGIN_* controlling format are confusing (Was: Misleading error message in logical decoding)

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Options OUTPUT_PLUGIN_* controlling format are confusing (Was: Misleading error message in logical decoding)
Date: 2014-09-30 05:45:11
Message-ID: CAB7nPqRn+HCeC=w6Q9ofCPRO3um5yuAJJo9PHtNsxUTiNb0rLA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 12:06 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 9:03 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
> wrote:
> >> - except that changes are returned as <type>bytea</type>.
> >> + except that changes are returned as <type>bytea</type> and
> that it
> >> can
> >> + be used on slots using output plugins that only support binary
> >> output.
> >
> > Imo that's pretty much implied because it references the !binary
> > version. But I guess it doesn't hurt to be explicit. How about:
> > " ... on output plugins using any form of output, including binary."?
>
> I think you should just leave it alone. There's no problem with what
> it says there right now. It goes without saying that if the plugin
> can only return bytea, then you have to use the bytea-returning
> function to get it. If it's not clear that such plugins might exist,
> that needs to be clarified better elsewhere, not here.
>
Yes, not modifying the current text would be fine.
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Craig Ringer 2014-09-30 05:46:11 Re: Fwd: Proper query implementation for Postgresql driver
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2014-09-30 05:44:10 Re: Options OUTPUT_PLUGIN_* controlling format are confusing (Was: Misleading error message in logical decoding)