On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > 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.
Fair enough, but I'm still not very interested in having something for CustomScan only. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
