Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > Tom Lane wrote: > >Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> writes: > >>Jeff Davis wrote: > >>>So, I think ASCII is the natural choice here. > > > >>It's not worth hanging up this facility over this issue, ISTM. > >>If we want something more that ASCII then a base64 or hex > >>encoded string could possibly meet the need in the first > >>instance. > > > >Yeah, that would serve people who want to push either binary or > >non-ASCII data through the pipe. It would leave all risks of encoding > >problems on the user's head, though. > > True. It's a workaround, but I think it's acceptable at this stage. > We need to get some experience with this facility before we can > refine it.
Hmm? If we decide now that it's not going to have encoding conversion, we won't able to change it later. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
