On Sat, 4 Mar 2023 at 19:06, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> writes: > > On Sat, 2023-03-04 at 18:04 -0500, Dave Cramer wrote: > >> 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. > > > The client could, in theory, have a priori knowledge of a non-builtin > > type. > > I don't see what's "in theory" about that. There seems plenty of > use for binary I/O of, say, PostGIS types. Even for built-in types, > do we really want to encourage people to hard-wire their OIDs into > applications? >
How does a client read these? I'm pretty narrowly focussed. The JDBC API doesn't really have a way to read a non built-in type. There is a facility to read a UDT, but the user would have to provide that transcoder. I guess I'm curious how other clients read binary UDT's ? > > I don't see a big problem with driving this off a GUC, but I think > it should be a list of type names not OIDs. We already have plenty > of precedent for dealing with that sort of thing; see search_path > for the canonical example. IIRC, there's similar caching logic > for temp_tablespaces. > I have no issue with allowing names, OID's were compact, but we could easily support both Dave
