Re: plperl vs. bytea

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