From: | Dave Cramer <davecramer(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, 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 14:22:36 |
Message-ID: | CADK3HH+rFWg4hhuRqaz4YQK3RgAyg2NArQ-N8-vN-R7TD4pJJA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 at 21:30, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Dave Cramer <davecramer(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 at 18:12, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >> I would not expect DISCARD ALL to reset a session-level property.
>
> > Well if we can't reset it with DISCARD ALL how would that work with
> > pgbouncer, or any pool for that matter since it doesn't know which client
> > asked for which (if any) OID's to be binary.
>
> Well, it'd need to know that, just like it already needs to know
> which clients asked for which database or which login role.
>
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.
Am I mis-understanding how this would potentially work?
Dave
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Zheng Li | 2023-03-28 14:29:49 | Re: Support logical replication of global object commands |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2023-03-28 14:16:25 | Re: Move definition of standard collations from initdb to pg_collation.dat |