Re: [HACKERS] Priorities for 6.6

OK, question answered, TODO item added:

* Add non-large-object binary field

> > Is this doable? I just looked at the list of datatypes and didn't see
> > binary as one of them.
>
> bytea ... even if we didn't have one, inventing it would be trivial.
> (Although I wonder whether pg_dump copes with arbitrary data in fields
> properly ... I think there are still some issues about COPY protocol
> not being fully 8-bit-clean...)
>
> As someone else pointed out, you'd still want an equivalent of
> lo_read/lo_write, but now it would mean fetch or put N bytes at an
> offset of M bytes within the value of field X of tuple Y in some
> relation. Otherwise field X is pretty much like any other item in the
> database. I suppose it'd only make sense to allow random data to be
> fetched/stored in a bytea field --- other datatypes would want to
> constrain the data to valid values...
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>

--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026