From: | Dave Cramer <davecramer(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Binary support for pgoutput plugin |
Date: | 2019-06-05 23:05:05 |
Message-ID: | CADK3HHKJ74agyh5gBrtEVWckfHoe3bk84uUHnW7DYambXVA0OA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Wed, 5 Jun 2019 at 18:50, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2019-06-05 18:47:57 -0400, Dave Cramer wrote:
> > So one of the things they would like added is to get not null information
> > in the schema record. This is so they can mark the field Optional in
> Java.
> > I presume this would also have some uses in other languages. As I
> > understand it this would require a protocol bump. If this were to be
> > accepted are there any outstanding asks that would useful to add if we
> were
> > going to bump the protocol?
>
> I'm pretty strongly opposed to this. What's the limiting factor when
> adding such information? I think clients that want something like this
> ought to query the database for catalog information when getting schema
> information.
>
I'm not intimately familiar with their code. I will query them more about
the ask.
I am curious why you are "strongly" opposed however. We already have the
information. Adding doesn't seem onerous.
Dave
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Rowley | 2019-06-06 00:41:03 | Re: No mention of no CIC support for partitioned index in docs |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2019-06-05 22:50:14 | Re: Binary support for pgoutput plugin |