"Merlin Moncure" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 6/8/08, Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Are you intending that these operations support both text and binary
>>> results?
>>
>> I'm a bit open on that.
> IMO, support for binary is critical. Because of the interplay of the
> array and composite out formats, the number of backslashes grows
> exponentially (!) with nesting levels. This makes text format arrays
> unsuitable for any non-trivial operations involving arrays of
> composites.
Um ... but who cares, as long as you've got functions to wrap and unwrap
the data for you? Personally I wouldn't object if these were text-only;
they'd be a whole lot more future-proof that way.
> One alternative is to do a MAXDIM (6) argument 'getter' also taking
> the requested dimension with perhaps some wrapping macros for
> simplicity. One issue with this is that it seems to suggest array
> slicing etc. which seems more complicated than it's worth.
Let's not embed MAXDIM in libpq's ABI :-(
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
