On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 8:02 AM, Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> wrote: > > > Merlin Moncure wrote: >> >> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> >>> >>> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> writes: >>> >>>> >>>> Tom Lane wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'm thinking plain old pairs-of-hex-digits might be the best >>>>> tradeoff if conversion speed is the criterion. >>>>> >>>> >>>> That's a lot less space-efficient than base64, though. >>>> >>> >>> Well, base64 could give a 33% savings, but it's significantly harder >>> to encode/decode. Also, since it has a much larger set of valid >>> data characters, it would be *much* more likely to allow old-style >>> formatting to be mistaken for new-style. Unless we can think of >>> a more bulletproof format selection mechanism, that could be >>> an overriding consideration. >>> >> >> another nit with base64 is that properly encoded data requires >> newlines according to the standard. >> > > er, no, not as I read rfc 3548 s 2.1.
PostgreSQL (sort of) follows RFC 2045, not RFC 3548. I don't think it would be a good idea to introduce a second method of encoding base64. merlin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
