> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > OK, code backed out. If the storage formats are the same, doesn't that
> > make them binary compatibile.
> No, because one allows nulls and the other doesn't. If you disregard
> what are legal values and what aren't, then every pair of varlena
> datatypes we have could be called "binary compatible".
> More to the point, though, why *should* they be marked binary
> compatible? I saw no compelling reason advanced for it, and I can see a
> couple of compelling reasons not to. Every binary-compatible pairing is
> another hole in our type system, another opportunity for unexpected
> behavior. We shouldn't add them on whims. Especially we shouldn't add
> them for datatypes that aren't even of the same family. bytea isn't for
> storage of textual data, and so it makes little sense to allow
> application of textual operations to it.
I have no idea why the user wanted it. I suppose it was so he could
pass text/varchar to bytea and back again. Seems he has to convert it,
which makes sense about the NULLs.
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
In response to
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2001-06-24 21:00:04|
|Subject: Re: Bytea binary compatible|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2001-06-24 03:10:48|
|Subject: Re: Bytea binary compatible |