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.