Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> 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.
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.