Christopher Browne wrote: > > I don't see there being a material benefit to be found in switching over > to a BINARY format.
This might be true if the binary data is only small; in case of large data and small indexes (something like 100GB TOAST, 20MB index size) this is certainly not the case. Certainly not when it would lead to a loss of > portability. I agree, though for my use-case (only i86) it is acceptable, I used a hard-coded slon version. I'd prefer a better COPY format anyway. Regards, Andreas _______________________________________________ Slony1-general mailing list [email protected] http://gborg.postgresql.org/mailman/listinfo/slony1-general
