On Wed, 2023-03-22 at 10:21 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> 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.
That sounds reasonable to me. It could also be useful for other
extension objects (or the extension itself) to avoid other kinds of
weirdness from name collisions or major version updates or extensions
that depend on other extensions.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
