Re: plperl vs. bytea

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Theo Schlossnagle <jesus(at)omniti(dot)com>
Subject: Re: plperl vs. bytea
Date: 2007-05-06 13:17:45
Message-ID: 200705061517.46632.peter_e@gmx.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> It's not. If we really want to tackle this root and branch without
> upsetting legacy code, I think we'd need to have a way of marking
> data items as binary in the grammar, e.g.
>
> create function myfunc(myarg binary bytea) returns binary bytea
> language plperl as $$ ...$$;

This ought to be a property of data type plus language, not a property
of a function.

--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2007-05-06 13:18:33 Re: Managing the community information stream
Previous Message Dave Page 2007-05-06 09:56:28 Re: Managing the community information stream