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

Re: bytea vs. pg_dump

From: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: bytea vs. pg_dump
Date: 2009-05-29 21:43:20
Message-ID: 1243633400.5399.31.camel@huvostro (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Fri, 2009-05-29 at 11:06 +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On Friday 29 May 2009 04:26:35 Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Added to TODO:
> > 	|Improve bytea COPY format
> >
> > 	*
> Btw., I have started to write some code for that.

why not copy bytea always in base64 encoded or similar format - this
will both save at least 2x the space on average random bytea data _and_
is probably faster, as it can be more easily done by table lookups in
bigger chunks

an alternative is to just escape minimal amount of characters, probably
just \0 , \n and \\

Hannu Krosing
PostgreSQL Scalability and Availability 
   Services, Consulting and Training

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Greg StarkDate: 2009-05-29 21:45:14
Subject: Re: search_path vs extensions
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-05-29 21:42:53
Subject: Re: Testing of parallel restore with current snapshot

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group