Re: Bytea/Base64 encoders for libpq - interested?

On Mon, Sep 03, 2001 at 08:48:22PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Where did we leave this?
>
> I don't think adding a datatype just to provide base64 encoding is
> a wise approach. The overhead of a new datatype (in the sense of
> providing operators/functions for it) will be much more than the
> benefit. I think providing encode/decode functions is sufficient...
> and we have those already, don't we?

Agree too. But 1000 "bad" chars encoded by base64 vs. encoded by
escape, what is longer and more expensive for transfer between FE
and BE?

A base64 problem is that encode all chars in string, but in the
real usage some data contains "bad" chars occasional only.

Karel

--
Karel Zak <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz>
http://home.zf.jcu.cz/~zakkr/

C, PostgreSQL, PHP, WWW, http://docs.linux.cz, http://mape.jcu.cz