On 12/6/23 20:09, David G. Johnston wrote:
On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 5:57 PM Joe Conway <m...@joeconway.com
<mailto:m...@joeconway.com>> wrote:
On 12/6/23 19:39, David G. Johnston wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 4:45 PM Joe Conway <m...@joeconway.com
<mailto:m...@joeconway.com>
> <mailto:m...@joeconway.com <mailto:m...@joeconway.com>>> wrote:
> But I still cannot shake the belief that using a format code of 1 -
> which really could be interpreted as meaning "textual csv" in
practice -
> for this JSON output is unwise and we should introduce a new integer
> value for the new fundamental output format.
No, I am pretty sure you still have that wrong. The "1" means binary
mode
Ok. I made the same typo twice, I did mean to write 0 instead of 1.
Fair enough.
But the point that we should introduce a 2 still stands. The new code
would mean: use text output functions but that there is no inherent
tabular structure in the underlying contents. Instead the copy format
was JSON and the output layout is dependent upon the json options in the
copy command and that there really shouldn't be any attempt to turn the
contents directly into a tabular data structure like you presently do
with the CSV data under format 0. Ignore the column count and column
formats as they are fixed or non-existent.
I think that amounts to a protocol change, which we tend to avoid at all
costs.
--
Joe Conway
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
