Couldn't it be done optionally, so the clients that want the info pay the price and those that don't want it get the speed and lower bandwidth?
Just a thought andrew ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Also doesn't the planner/executor already have all needed info available ? > > Not directly, and not necessarily in the form that the client would want > it in (eg, converting type OID to type name isn't free). I don't care > to load either the backend or the protocol down with the responsibility > for offering every piece of column data that a client could possibly > want as part of RowDescription. > > Besides, elsewhere in this thread we were hearing about how > RowDescription is already too much overhead for some people ;-) > > To my mind, the argument in favor of this feature is essentially that > it saves ODBC/JDBC from needing to duplicate the backend's SQL parser; > which is a legitimate concern. But that doesn't translate to saying > that we should push functionality out of the clients and into the > backend when it wouldn't be in the backend otherwise. That's just > moving code around on the basis of some rather-shaky arguments about > performance. And what happens when your client wants something > different from the exact functionality that was pushed to the backend? > You're back to square one. > > regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
