On 2020-11-16 16:15, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> I think this is conceptually OK, although it feels a bit odd.
>
> Might it be better to have the values as typename={binary,text} pairs
> instead of oid={0,1} pairs, which are fairly opaque? That might make
> things easier for things like UDTs where the oid might not be known or
> constant.
Yes, type names would be better. I was hesitant because of all the
parsing work involved, but I bit the bullet and did it in the new patch.
To simplify the format, I changed the parameter so it's just a list of
types that you want in binary, rather than type=value pairs. If we ever
want to add another format, we would revisit this, but it seems unlikely
in the near future.
Also, I have changed the naming of the parameter since this is no longer
the "default" but something you choose explicitly. I'm thinking in the
direction of "auto" mode for the naming. Obviously, the name is easy to
tweak in any case.
--
Peter Eisentraut
2ndQuadrant, an EDB company
https://www.2ndquadrant.com/
