Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@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.
cheers
andrew