On 11/9/20 5:10 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 2020-11-05 22:03, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> Independently of that, how would you implement "says otherwise" here,
>>> ie do a single-query override of the session's prevailing setting?
>>> Maybe the right thing for that is to define -1 all the way down to the
>>> protocol level as meaning "use the session's per-type default", and
>>> then if you don't want that you can pass 0 or 1. An advantage of that
>>> is that you couldn't accidentally break an application that wasn't
>>> ready for this feature, because it would not be the default to use it.
>> Yeah, that sounds a lot better. I'll look into that.
>
> Here is a new patch updated to work that way. Feels better now.
>
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.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
