somiljain2006 commented on PR #39225: URL: https://github.com/apache/shardingsphere/pull/39225#issuecomment-5155444273
Thanks for the follow-up review. I understand that the remaining blockers are architectural rather than implementation-specific. From the repeated feedback, my understanding is that the implementation should not move forward until two ownership decisions are agreed: 1. Which component should be the authoritative owner of PostgreSQL custom type identity across the extended protocol flow (Parse, Describe, Bind, repeated execution, and batch execution). 2. Whether `typeName` is intended to become part of the persisted shared metadata contract, or whether PostgreSQL custom type information should remain protocol-local. Rather than continuing to iterate on the current resolver-based approach, I'd like to align on those design decisions first. Could you clarify what the intended ownership is for these two areas? Once that direction is clear, I'll rework the implementation around that architecture instead of continuing to evolve the current approach. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
