Re: [HACKERS] bytea_output output of base64
От | Andrew Dunstan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] bytea_output output of base64 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 7dae2268-f419-9967-362c-7f3364d0eb0b@2ndQuadrant.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] bytea_output output of base64 (David Fetter <david@fetter.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] bytea_output output of base64
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 02/23/2017 06:52 PM, David Fetter wrote: > On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 05:55:37PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 04:08:58PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes: >>>> Is there a reason we don't support base64 as a bytea_output output >>>> option, except that no one has implemented it? >>> How about "we already have one too many bytea output formats"? >>> I don't think forcing code to try to support still another one >>> is a great thing ... especially not if it couldn't be reliably >>> distinguished from the hex format. >> Is there a reason we chose hex over base64? > Whether there was or not, there's not a compelling reason now to break > people's software. When people want compression, methods a LOT more > effective than base64 are common. Gzip, for example. > What's the use case anyway? It's already supported by the encode() and decode() functions if you need that format. cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: