From: Michael Meskes [mailto:meskes@postgresql.org]
> > bytea as a type of table definition may correspond to BLOB in the
> > standard.
>
> Would we prefer to add a blob datatype then?
>
> > It seems that there is no defact and no product following to the
> > standards.
> > I wonder whether bytea should follow to the standard completely or
> > follow to existing varchar for usability.
>
> Do you see any disadvantage of following the standard? I don't really
> see where the usability drawback is. In general I would prefer being as
> close to the standard as reasonably possible.
I think the host variable data type that corresponds to the server-side bytea should be bytea. As the following pages
stateor imply, it would be better to create standard-compliant LOB types someday, and use the keyword BLOB in ECPG for
thattype. The server-side data types should have the names BLOB, CLOB and NCLOB. Those types should handle data
largetthan 1 GB and have the locator feature defined in the SQL standard. Maybe we should also advanced LOB features
likeOracle's SecureFiles LOB and SQL Server's FileTables.
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/datatype-binary.html
"The SQL standard defines a different binary string type, called BLOB or BINARY LARGE OBJECT. The input format is
differentfrom bytea, but the provided functions and operators are mostly the same."
BinaryFilesInDB
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/BinaryFilesInDB
Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa
