On 20.03.23 18:04, Jeff Davis wrote:
> Also, if we're going to make the binary format more practical to use,
> can we document the expectations better? It seems the expecatation is
> that the binary format just never changes, and that if it does, that's
> a new type name.
I've been thinking that we need some new kind of identifier to allow
clients to process types in more sophisticated ways.
For example, each type could be (self-)assigned a UUID, which is fixed
for that type no matter in which schema or under what extension name or
with what OID it is installed. Client libraries could then hardcode
that UUID for processing the types. Conversely, the UUID could be
changed if the wire format of the type is changed, without having to
change the type name.
