Re: Request for comment on setting binary format output per session
Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>
From: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
Cc: Dave Cramer <davecramer@gmail.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2023-10-04T16:26:31Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Commits
Same data as JSON:
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
Silence compiler warning introduced in 1edb3b491b
- fba2112b1569 17.0 cited
On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 9:17 AM Peter Eisentraut <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? merlin