On Thu, 2008-06-12 at 19:07 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Marc Munro wrote:
> > I require base64 or some similar encoding scheme from a C language. . .
> >
> > I know I could call these functions indirectly by calling binary_ecncode
> > through DirectFunctionCalln() but this is a whole lot more complexity
> > and overhead than I'd like. . .
> >
> Just how much complexity do you think calling binary_encode involves?
> You can probably do the whole thing in one or two lines of code.
I'm sure that's true once I've got my head around the mechanism, but it
adds two levels of indirection that seem quite unnecessary, and given
that the author of pgcrypto has also wound up copying the functions I
guess I'm not the only one who'd rather avoid it.
If there are good reasons not to expose the functions, or if the hackers
just don't want to do it I'm fine with that. For dealing with 8.3 and
earlier I will have to live with the redundancy. For 8.4 I'd like not
to, but it's really not a big deal.
Thanks for the response though. Being able to get a response from
developers means a lot. I used to be an Oracle DBA and I have to say
the response I get from this group is light years ahead of what I used
to have to pay for.
__
Marc