On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 9:17 AM Peter Eisentraut <pe...@eisentraut.org> wrote:
> I think intuitively, this facility ought to work like client_encoding. > There, the client declares its capabilities, and the server has to > format the output according to the client's capabilities. That works, > and it also works through connection poolers. (It is a GUC.) If we can > model it like that as closely as possible, then we have a chance of > getting it working reliably. Notably, the value space for > client_encoding is a globally known fixed list of strings. We need to > figure out what is the right way to globally identify types, like either > by fully-qualified name, by base name, some combination, how does it > work with extensions, or do we need a new mechanism like UUIDs. I think > that is something we need to work out, no matter which protocol > mechanism we end up using. > Fantastic write up. > globally known fixed list of strings Are you suggesting that we would have a client/server negotiation such as, 'jdbc<version>', 'all', etc where that would identify which types are done which way? If you did that, why would we need to promote names/uuid to permanent global space? merlin
