First of all, apologies if this was not meant to be a feedback/wishlist mailing list.
Binary formats in libpq has been (probably) a long issue (refer to the listings below) and I want to express my hope that the next revision of PostgreSQL would have better support for binary data types in libpq. I am in no doubt that those binary vs. text debates sprouted because of PostgreSQL's (or rather libpq's) ambiguity when it comes to binary data support. One instance is the documentation itself: it didn't really say (correct me if I'm wrong) that binary data is poorly/not supported and that textual data is preferred. Moreover, those ambiguities are only cleared up in mailing lists/irc/forums which make it seem that the arguments for text data is just an excuse to not have proper support for binary data (e.x. C:"Elephant doesn't support Hammer!" P: "You don't really need Hammer (we don't support it yet), you can do it with Screwdriver."). This is not meant to be a binary vs. text post so I'll reserve my comments for them. Nevertheless, they each have their own advantages and disadvantages especially when it comes to strongly typed languages that neither shouldn't be ignored. I am well-aware of the problems associated with binary formats and backward/forward compatibility: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/1999-08/msg00374.php but nevertheless, that shouldn't stop PostgreSQL/libpq's hardworking developers from coming up with a solution. The earling link showed the interest of using CORBA to handle PostgreSQL objects but I belive that it's an overkill and would like to propose using ASN.1 instead. However, what's important is not really the binary/text representation. If we look again the the list below, not everyone need binary formats just for speed and efficiency, rather, they need it to be able to easily manipulate data. In other words, the interfaces to extract data is also important. Best wishes, Wil NOTES/History of Posts: 1: "Query regarding PostgreSQL date/time binary format for libpq" < http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-interfaces/2007-01/msg00040.php> One of the many (clueless) individuals who wants to get the binary format of the date/time struct (I know that there's a way to do this be converting the time to epoch using extract(epoch from time) to convert it to somthing akin to time_t) 2. "Bytea network traffic: binary vs text result format" < http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-interfaces/2007-06/msg00000.php> One of the many Binary vs. Text debates. 3. "How do you convert PostgreSQL internal binary field to C datatypes" < http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-interfaces/2007-05/msg00046.php> An individual disgruntled because of the "half baked C API" of PostgreSQL. Although he may be wrong in some or many aspects, he has a point with regards to the binary format support. Moreover, he is probably one of the many individuals who are disappointed on PostgreSQL because of this. 4. "Array handling in libpq" < http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-interfaces/2007-01/msg00027.php> One of the common scenarios for the "need" of a binary format (or rather, a better interface): arrays. Also, the reply of this is one of the many/redundant assurances that the overhead of text is minimal. 5. "libpq PQexecParams and arrays" < http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-interfaces/2006-06/msg00008.php> Another one of those array issues. This time, the poster/s have expressed that the documentation for binary formats is "poorly documented :-(" 6. "PQgetvalue failed to return column value for non-text data in binary format" < http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-interfaces/2007-05/msg00045.php> Another issue about binary formats paired with the assurance (again) that the overhead of using text is minimal. -- (<_<)(>_>)(>_<)(<.<)(>.>)(>.<) Life is too short for dial-up.
