On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Marko Kreen <markokr@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 10:23:14AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Huh? How can that work? If we decide to change the representation of
>>> some other "well known type", say numeric, how do we decide whether a
>>> client setting that bit is expecting that change or not?
>
>> It sets that bit *and* version code - which means that it is
>> up-to-date with all "well-known" type formats in that version.
>
> Then why bother with the bit in the format code? If you've already done
> some other negotiation to establish what datatype formats you will
> accept, this doesn't seem to be adding any value.
>
>> Basically, I see 2 scenarios here:
>
>> 1) Client knows the result types and can set the
>> text/bin/version code safely, without further restrictions.
>
>> 2) There is generic framework, that does not know query contents
>> but can be expected to track Postgres versions closely.
>> Such framework cannot say "binary" for results safely,
>> but *could* do it for some well-defined subset of types.
>
> The hole in approach (2) is that it supposes that the client side knows
> the specific datatypes in a query result in advance. While this is
> sometimes workable for application-level code that knows what query it's
> issuing, it's really entirely untenable for a framework or library.
> The only way that a framework can deal with arbitrary queries is to
> introduce an extra round trip (Describe step) to see what datatypes
> the query will produce so it can decide what format codes to issue
> ... and that will pretty much eat up any time savings you might get
> from a more efficient representation.
>
> You really want to do the negotiation once, at connection setup, and
> then be able to process queries without client-side prechecking of what
> data types will be sent back.
What might work is for clients to advertise a list of capability
strings, like "compact_array_format", at connection startup time. The
server can then adjust its behavior based on that list. But the
problem with that is that as we make changes to the wire protocol, the
list of capabilities clients need to advertise could get pretty long
in a hurry. A simpler alternative is to have the client send a server
version along with the initial connection attempt and have the server
do its best not to use any features that weren't present in that
server version - but that seems to leave user-defined types out in the
cold.
I reiterate my previous view that we don't have time to engineer a
good solution to this problem right now.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
