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

Re: Binary in/out for aclitem

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Radosław Smogura <rsmogura(at)softperience(dot)eu>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Binary in/out for aclitem
Date: 2011-02-23 21:30:04
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
=?utf-8?q?Rados=C5=82aw_Smogura?= <rsmogura(at)softperience(dot)eu> writes:
> Here is extended version, has version field (N_ACL_RIGHTS*2) and reserved 
> mask, as well definition is more general then def of PGSQL. In any way it 
> require that rights mades bit array.

You're going in quite the wrong direction here.  The consensus as I
understood it was that we should just use the text representation in
binary mode too, rather than inventing a separate representation that's
going to put a whole new set of constraints on what can happen to the
internal representation.  The proposal you have here has no redeeming
social value whatever, because nobody cares about the I/O efficiency
for aclitem (and even if anyone did, you've made no case that this would
actually be more efficient to use on the client side).

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2011-02-23 21:54:20
Subject: Possible substitute for PostmasterIsAlive polling loops
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2011-02-23 21:20:54
Subject: Re: Binary in/out for aclitem

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