Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>> 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.
I'm with Robert here. The fact is that postgres_fdw and other FDWs are
living just fine with the restrictions we put in to allow copyfuncs.c to
copy ForeignScan, and there's been no sufficient justification offered
as to why CustomScan can't play by those rules.
Yes, it would be nice to be able to use a more-tailored struct definition,
but it's not *necessary*. We should not contort the core system
enormously in order to provide a bit more notational cleanliness to
extensions.
I'd be fine with fixing this if a nice solution were to present itself,
but so far nothing's been offered that wasn't horrid.
BTW, the "inefficiency" argument is junk, unless you provide some hard
evidence of a case where it hurts a lot. If we were forcing people to
use serialized representations at execution time, it would be meaningful,
but we're not; you can convert as needed at executor setup time.
regards, tom lane