Re: default result formats setting

On 11/25/20 2:06 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 2020-11-16 16:15, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> I think this is conceptually OK, although it feels a bit odd.
>>
>> Might it be better to have the values as typename={binary,text} pairs
>> instead of oid={0,1} pairs, which are fairly opaque? That might make
>> things easier for things like UDTs where the oid might not be known or
>> constant.
>
> Yes, type names would be better.  I was hesitant because of all the
> parsing work involved, but I bit the bullet and did it in the new patch.
>
> To simplify the format, I changed the parameter so it's just a list of
> types that you want in binary, rather than type=value pairs.  If we ever
> want to add another format, we would revisit this, but it seems unlikely
> in the near future.
>
> Also, I have changed the naming of the parameter since this is no longer
> the "default" but something you choose explicitly.  I'm thinking in the
> direction of "auto" mode for the naming.  Obviously, the name is easy to
> tweak in any case.

Andrew, Tom, does the latest patch address your concerns?

Regards,
--
-David
david(at)pgmasters(dot)net