RE: [PROPOSAL]a new data type 'bytea' for ECPG
От | Tsunakawa, Takayuki |
---|---|
Тема | RE: [PROPOSAL]a new data type 'bytea' for ECPG |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 0A3221C70F24FB45833433255569204D1FAFFD08@G01JPEXMBYT05 обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [PROPOSAL]a new data type 'bytea' for ECPG (Michael Meskes <meskes@postgresql.org>) |
Ответы |
RE: [PROPOSAL]a new data type 'bytea' for ECPG
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
From: Michael Meskes [mailto:meskes@postgresql.org] > > bytea as a type of table definition may correspond to BLOB in the > > standard. > > Would we prefer to add a blob datatype then? > > > It seems that there is no defact and no product following to the > > standards. > > I wonder whether bytea should follow to the standard completely or > > follow to existing varchar for usability. > > Do you see any disadvantage of following the standard? I don't really > see where the usability drawback is. In general I would prefer being as > close to the standard as reasonably possible. I think the host variable data type that corresponds to the server-side bytea should be bytea. As the following pages stateor imply, it would be better to create standard-compliant LOB types someday, and use the keyword BLOB in ECPG for thattype. The server-side data types should have the names BLOB, CLOB and NCLOB. Those types should handle data largetthan 1 GB and have the locator feature defined in the SQL standard. Maybe we should also advanced LOB features likeOracle's SecureFiles LOB and SQL Server's FileTables. https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/datatype-binary.html "The SQL standard defines a different binary string type, called BLOB or BINARY LARGE OBJECT. The input format is differentfrom bytea, but the provided functions and operators are mostly the same." BinaryFilesInDB https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/BinaryFilesInDB Regards Takayuki Tsunakawa
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: