On 02/06/2014 01:48 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> writes: >> On 02/05/2014 11:40 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> switching to "binary is the same as text" may well be the most prudent >>> path here. > >> If we do that we're going to have to live with that forever, aren't we? > > Yeah, but the other side of that coin is that we'll have to live forever > with whatever binary format we pick, too. If it turns out to be badly > designed, that could be much worse than eating some parsing costs during > dump/restore. > > If we had infinite time/manpower, this wouldn't really be an issue. > We don't, though, and so I suggest that this may be one of the better > things to toss overboard.
Can't we just reject attempts to transfer these via binary copy, allowing only a text format? So rather than sending text when the binary is requested, we just require clients to use text for this type. That way it's possible to add the desired binary format later, without rushed decisions. -- Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers