Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Simplifying unknown-literal handling

From: Andrew - Supernews <andrew+nonews(at)supernews(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Simplifying unknown-literal handling
Date: 2005-05-29 18:27:59
Message-ID: slrnd9k2df.1d3v.andrew+nonews@trinity.supernews.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 2005-05-29, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)surnet(dot)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

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-05-29 19:10:32
Subject: Re: Escape handling in COPY, strings, psql
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2005-05-29 18:00:19
Subject: Re: Escape handling in COPY, strings, psql

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group