On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 07:09:57PM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > On 02/23/2017 06:52 PM, David Fetter wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 05:55:37PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 04:08:58PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > >>> Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: > >>>> Is there a reason we don't support base64 as a bytea_output output > >>>> option, except that no one has implemented it? > >>> How about "we already have one too many bytea output formats"? > >>> I don't think forcing code to try to support still another one > >>> is a great thing ... especially not if it couldn't be reliably > >>> distinguished from the hex format. > >> Is there a reason we chose hex over base64? > > Whether there was or not, there's not a compelling reason now to break > > people's software. When people want compression, methods a LOT more > > effective than base64 are common. Gzip, for example. > > > > > What's the use case anyway? It's already supported by the encode() and > decode() functions if you need that format.
I was just curious because it seems more compact than hex and many exchange formats use it, like SSL certificates and keys. I know you can encode() but I thought it might help make pg_dump output smaller. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
