Re: bytea vs. pg_dump
От | Andrew Dunstan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: bytea vs. pg_dump |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4A017C45.4020009@dunslane.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: bytea vs. pg_dump (Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: bytea vs. pg_dump
Re: bytea vs. pg_dump |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Merlin Moncure wrote: > On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> writes: >> >>> Tom Lane wrote: >>> >>>> I'm thinking plain old pairs-of-hex-digits might be the best >>>> tradeoff if conversion speed is the criterion. >>>> >>> That's a lot less space-efficient than base64, though. >>> >> Well, base64 could give a 33% savings, but it's significantly harder >> to encode/decode. Also, since it has a much larger set of valid >> data characters, it would be *much* more likely to allow old-style >> formatting to be mistaken for new-style. Unless we can think of >> a more bulletproof format selection mechanism, that could be >> an overriding consideration. >> > > another nit with base64 is that properly encoded data requires > newlines according to the standard. > er, no, not as I read rfc 3548 s 2.1. cheers andrew
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: