From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Radosław Smogura <rsmogura(at)softperience(dot)eu> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Binary in/out for aclitem |
Date: | 2011-02-23 21:30:04 |
Message-ID: | 7177.1298496604@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
=?utf-8?q?Rados=C5=82aw_Smogura?= <rsmogura(at)softperience(dot)eu> writes:
> Here is extended version, has version field (N_ACL_RIGHTS*2) and reserved
> mask, as well definition is more general then def of PGSQL. In any way it
> require that rights mades bit array.
You're going in quite the wrong direction here. The consensus as I
understood it was that we should just use the text representation in
binary mode too, rather than inventing a separate representation that's
going to put a whole new set of constraints on what can happen to the
internal representation. The proposal you have here has no redeeming
social value whatever, because nobody cares about the I/O efficiency
for aclitem (and even if anyone did, you've made no case that this would
actually be more efficient to use on the client side).
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-02-23 21:54:20 | Possible substitute for PostmasterIsAlive polling loops |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-02-23 21:20:54 | Re: Binary in/out for aclitem |