Re: [HACKERS] Priorities for 6.6

OK, question answered, TODO item added:
* Add non-large-object binary field

> > Is this doable?  I just looked at the list of datatypes and didn't see
> > binary as one of them.
> 
> bytea ... even if we didn't have one, inventing it would be trivial.
> (Although I wonder whether pg_dump copes with arbitrary data in fields
> properly ... I think there are still some issues about COPY protocol
> not being fully 8-bit-clean...)
> 
> As someone else pointed out, you'd still want an equivalent of
> lo_read/lo_write, but now it would mean fetch or put N bytes at an
> offset of M bytes within the value of field X of tuple Y in some
> relation.  Otherwise field X is pretty much like any other item in the
> database.  I suppose it'd only make sense to allow random data to be
> fetched/stored in a bytea field --- other datatypes would want to
> constrain the data to valid values...
> 
>             regards, tom lane
> 
> 


--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610)
853-3000+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026