On Wed, 22 Mar 2023 at 15:23, Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> wrote: > On Wed, 2023-03-22 at 14:42 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > This isn't going to help much unless we change the wire protocol > > so that RowDescription messages carry these UUIDs instead of > > (or in addition to?) the OIDs of the column datatypes. While > > that's not completely out of the question, it's a heavy lift > > that will affect multiple layers of client code along with the > > server. > > I'm not sure that's a hard requirement. I pointed out a similar > solution for type names here: > > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/4297b9e310172b9a1e6d737e21ad8796d0ab7b03.ca...@j-davis.com > > In other words: if the Bind message depends on knowing the OID > mappings, that forces an extra round-trip; but if the client doesn't > need the mapping until it receives its first result, then it can use > pipelining to avoid the extra round-trip. >
This overcomplicates things for the JDBC driver. We don't pipeline queries, well we do for batch queries but those are special. > (I haven't actually tried it and I don't know if it's very reasonable > to expect the client to do this.) > > > Also, what about container types? I doubt it's sane for > > array-of-foo to have a UUID that's unrelated to the one for foo. > > Composites and ranges would need some intelligence too if we > > don't want them to be unduly complicated to process. > > That's a good point. I don't know if that is a major design issue or > not; but it certainly adds complexity to the proposal and/or clients > implementing it. > So where do we go from here ? I can implement using type names as well as OID's Dave
