Re: Bytea/Base64 encoders for libpq - interested?

From: Karel Zak <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Joerg Hessdoerfer <Joerg(dot)Hessdoerfer(at)sea-gmbh(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Bytea/Base64 encoders for libpq - interested?
Date: 2001-09-04 08:11:45
Message-ID: 20010904101145.A18929@zf.jcu.cz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

On Mon, Sep 03, 2001 at 08:48:22PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Where did we leave this?
>
> I don't think adding a datatype just to provide base64 encoding is
> a wise approach. The overhead of a new datatype (in the sense of
> providing operators/functions for it) will be much more than the
> benefit. I think providing encode/decode functions is sufficient...
> and we have those already, don't we?

Agree too. But 1000 "bad" chars encoded by base64 vs. encoded by
escape, what is longer and more expensive for transfer between FE
and BE?

A base64 problem is that encode all chars in string, but in the
real usage some data contains "bad" chars occasional only.

Karel

--
Karel Zak <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz>
http://home.zf.jcu.cz/~zakkr/

C, PostgreSQL, PHP, WWW, http://docs.linux.cz, http://mape.jcu.cz

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2001-09-04 10:25:48 Re: Bytea/Base64 encoders for libpq - interested?
Previous Message Dave Page 2001-09-04 07:14:27 Re: Porting to Native WindowsNT/2000

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2001-09-04 10:19:20 Re: Patch for pl/tcl Tcl_ExternalToUtf and Tcl_UtfToExternal
Previous Message Vsevolod Lobko 2001-09-04 06:09:54 Re: Patch for pl/tcl Tcl_ExternalToUtf and Tcl_UtfToExternal