Hi,
On Wed, 5 Jun 2019 at 07:18, Petr Jelinek <petr.jeli...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On 05/06/2019 00:08, Andres Freund wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On 2019-06-05 00:05:02 +0200, David Fetter wrote: > >> Would it make sense to work toward a binary format that's not > >> architecture-specific? I recall from COPY that our binary format is > >> not standardized across, for example, big- and little-endian machines. > > > > I think you recall wrongly. It's obviously possible that we have bugs > > around this, but output/input routines are supposed to handle a > > endianess independent format. That usually means that you have to do > > endianess conversions, but that doesn't make it non-standardized. > > > > Yeah, there are really 3 formats of data we have, text protocol, binary > network protocol and internal on disk format. The internal on disk > format will not work across big/little-endian but network binary > protocol will. > > FWIW I don't think the code for binary format was included in original > logical replication patch (I really tried to keep it as minimal as > possible), but the code and protocol is pretty much ready for adding that. > Yes, I looked through the public history and could not find it. Thanks for confirming. > > That said, pglogical has code which handles this (I guess Andres means > that by predecessor of pgoutput) so if you look for example at the > write_tuple/read_tuple/decide_datum_transfer in > > https://github.com/2ndQuadrant/pglogical/blob/REL2_x_STABLE/pglogical_proto_native.c > that can help you give some ideas on how to approach this. > Thanks for the tip! Dave Cramer > > >
