On 2015-11-11 14:59:33 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > I don't see this as being a particularly good idea. The same issue > exists for FDWs, and we're just living with it in that case.
It's absolutely horrible there. I don't see why that's a justification for much. To deal with the lack of extensible copy/out/readfuncs I've just had to copy the entirety of readfuncs.c into an extension. Or you build replacements for those (as e.g. postgres_fdw essentially has done). > If we do want to improve it, I'm not sure this is the way to go, > either. I think there could be other designs where we focus on making > the serialization and deserialization options better, rather than > letting people tack stuff onto the struct. Just better serialization doesn't actually help all that much. Being able to conveniently access data directly, i.e. as fields in a struct, makes code rather more readable. And in many cases more efficient. Having to serialize internal datastructures unconditionally, just so copyfuncs.c works if actually used, makes for a fair amount of inefficiency (forced deserialization, even when not copying) and uglier code. Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
