| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, 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 13:24:36 |
| Message-ID: | 463DD714.6090406@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> 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.
>
>
Why should it?
And how would you do it in such a way that it didn't break legacy code?
My GUC proposal would have made it language+type specific, but Tom
didn't like that approach.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2007-05-06 14:26:54 | Re: New idea for patch tracking |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-05-06 13:18:33 | Re: Managing the community information stream |