Re: Simplifying unknown-literal handling

On 2005-05-29, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@surnet.cl> writes:
>> On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 11:47:18AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Anyone see a reason not to change this?
>
>> Is there any way we use UNKNOWN to represent bytea literals?
>> Say, comparing a untyped literal to a bytea column?
>
> We use UNKNOWN to represent the raw string literal before we've
> figured out that we need to feed it to byteain.  There aren't
> going to be any embedded nulls at that point, if that's what
> you are wondering.

Are there any cases where UNKNOWN can be received from the frontend as
a binary value? I suspect there are.

-- 
Andrew, Supernews
http://www.supernews.com - individual and corporate NNTP services