| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Radosław Smogura <rsmogura(at)softperience(dot)eu>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Binary in/out for aclitem |
| Date: | 2011-02-23 01:12:38 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTimH_-AxRGfEfF69Kk0ZMcCDG_jJ9xgiDajajdS-@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>> On 02/22/2011 05:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I think this one has got far less use-case than the other, and I don't
>>> want to expose the internal representation of ACLITEM to the world.
>
>> The sendv for enums sends the label, and ISTR there are some others that
>> send the text representation also. Would that be better?
>
> It'd be more future-proof than this patch, but I'm still unconvinced
> about the use-case.
Do we want to intentionally make binary format a second-class citizen?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-02-23 01:18:24 | Re: Snapshot synchronization, again... |
| Previous Message | Joachim Wieland | 2011-02-23 01:00:15 | Re: Snapshot synchronization, again... |