Re: Request for comment on setting binary format output per session

On 04.10.23 18:26, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 9:17 AM Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org 
> <mailto:peter@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?

No, I don't think I meant anything like that.