I was not following the topic lately, so excuse me if I'm out of sync. > Which brings me to my reasoning why apr_dbd_blob_t doesn't contain a > brigade (one of the proposals that was floating on the list), but > rather a flat data pointer and size (in case you were wondering). The > caller is in a much better position to control memory allocation > issues here and leaving the "flattening" of a brigade to DBD functions > can bring about all kinds of unwanted memory allocation effects. In > the end, most databases deal with a flat chunk of memory and that's > what callers mostly have anyway.
It also was my idea on going this way some time ago, but now I see the light. I actually believe that there is a considerable advantage in using buckets (not brigades) when passing binary data to and from the database. And heap buckets behave in a way user will expect from *_blob_t or any similar structure. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
