Re: OCTET_LENGTH is wrong
От | Barry Lind |
---|---|
Тема | Re: OCTET_LENGTH is wrong |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3BF944DC.2040701@xythos.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: OCTET_LENGTH is wrong (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: OCTET_LENGTH is wrong
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom, While the text datatypes have additional issues with encodings, that is not true for the bytea type. I think it does make sense that a client be able to get the size in bytes that the bytea type value will return to the client. If you are storing files in a bytea column getting the file size by calling octet_length would be very useful. thanks, --Barry Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes: > >>I think "the value of S" implies "the user-accessible representation of >>the value of S", in the sense, "How much memory do I need to allocate to >>store this value". >> > > If I take that argument seriously, I have to conclude that OCTET_LENGTH > should return the string length measured in the current client encoding > (which may have little to do with its size in the server, if the > server's encoding is different). If the client actually retrieves the > string then that's how much memory he'll need. > > I presume that where you want to come out is OCTET_LENGTH = uncompressed > length in the server's encoding ... but so far no one has really made > a convincing argument why that answer is better or more spec-compliant > than any other answer. In particular, it's not obvious to me why > "number of bytes we're actually using on disk" is wrong. > > regards, tom lane > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster > >
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: