| From: | Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Subject: | Re: bytea vs. pg_dump |
| Date: | 2009-07-08 09:23:32 |
| Message-ID: | 07F7ECE41BBB79F44E6C0ECD@teje |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
--On Dienstag, Juli 07, 2009 18:07:08 -0400 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
wrote:
> Enum. If we do this then it seems entirely fair that someone might
> want other settings someday. Also, it seems silly to pick a format
> partly on the grounds that it's expansible, and then not make the
> control GUC expansible. Perhaps
>
> SET bytea_output = [ hex | traditional ]
I like the enum much better, too, but
SET bytea_output = [ hex | escape ]
looks better to me (encode/decode are using something like this already).
--
Thanks
Bernd
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2009-07-08 09:29:46 | Re: bytea vs. pg_dump |
| Previous Message | Dean Rasheed | 2009-07-08 09:17:24 | Re: WIP: Deferrable unique constraints |