MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAFCRh--O5DdQ=cR_Ph5sKoVurpC4A1F1_qB1H9VuiwAZR=F5+A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFCRh--O5DdQ=cR_Ph5sKoVurpC4A1F1_qB1H9VuiwAZR=F5+A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dominique Devienne <ddevienne@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2024 17:20:12 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFCRh-9W8mXh9MfRe-Z5bAcN5FVbsXuSW60-QPVMB1jHC4+bzQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: About the stability of COPY BINARY data
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAFCRh-9W8mXh9MfRe-Z5bAcN5FVbsXuSW60-QPVMB1jHC4%2BbzQ%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

From https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sql-copy.html:
|> binary-format file is less portable across machine architectures
and PostgreSQL versions

In my experience, the binary encoding of binding/resultset/copy is
endian neutral (network byte order), so what is the less portable
across machine architectures that warning about?

Also, does the code for per-type _send() and _recv() functions really change
across versions of PostgreSQL? How common are instances of such
changes across versions? Any examples of such backward-incompatible
changes, in the past?

The binary data contains OIDs, but if sticking to built-in types,
which OIDs are unlikely to change across versions?

I'm obviously storing COPY BINARY data (we have lots of bytea
columns), and I wonder how bad it is long term, and across PostgreSQL
versions.

Thanks for any insights, --DD