From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PQescapeBytea is not multibyte aware |
Date: | 2002-04-05 22:10:38 |
Message-ID: | 10498.1018044638@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
>> This scenario is probably why Tatsuo wants PQescapeBytea to octalize
>> everything with the high bit set; I'm not sure there's any lesser way
> Yuck! At that point you're no better off than converting to hex (and
> worse off than converting to base64) for storage.
No; the *storage* is still compact, it's just the I/O representation
that's not.
> SQL99 actually defines BLOB as a binary string literal comprised of an
> even number of hexadecimal digits, in single quotes, preceded by "X",
> e.g. X'1a43fe'. Should we be looking at implementing the standard
> instead of, or in addition to, octalizing?
Perhaps we should cause the system to regard hex-strings as literals of
type bytea. Right now I think they're taken to be integer constants,
which is clearly not per spec.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jon Grov | 2002-04-05 22:24:49 | Re: Suggestion for optimization |
Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2002-04-05 21:53:47 | Re: PQescapeBytea is not multibyte aware |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2002-04-05 22:29:14 | Re: 16 parameter limit |
Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2002-04-05 21:53:47 | Re: PQescapeBytea is not multibyte aware |