Re: bytea_output output of base64

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: bytea_output output of base64
Date: 2017-02-28 02:52:10
Message-ID: 20170228025210.GF11339@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 09:28:10PM +0530, Robert Haas wrote:
> I don't think Bruce was seriously proposing a change in this area
> anyway. I think he was just asking a question.

That is correct. I was asking if we made an obvious mistake, and most
people are saying no. Also, base64 is less easy to compress because
input bytes span base64-bytes, so "dog" might encode differently
depending on where the two high bits are stored, while hex alway encodes
"dog" the same way.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Langote 2017-02-28 02:53:16 Re: Partitioned tables and relfilenode
Previous Message Thomas Munro 2017-02-28 02:49:22 Unhelpful typesetting of callouts in example queries in the docs