On Thu, 2023-03-02 at 09:13 -0500, Dave Cramer wrote: > I'd like to open up this discussion again so that we can > move forward. I prefer the GUC as it is relatively simple and as > Peter mentioned it works, but I'm not married to the idea.
It's not very friendly to extensions, where the types are not guaranteed to have stable OIDs. Did you consider any proposals that work with type names?
I had not.
Most of the clients know how to decode the builtin types. I'm not sure there is a use case for binary encode types that the clients don't have a priori knowledge of.
