Re: bytea vs. pg_dump - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: bytea vs. pg_dump
Date
Msg-id 25745.1249402914@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: bytea vs. pg_dump  (Bernd Helmle <mailings@oopsware.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
Bernd Helmle <mailings@oopsware.de> writes:
> --On Samstag, Juli 11, 2009 13:40:44 +0300 Peter Eisentraut 
> <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
>> OK, here is an updated patch.  It has the setting as enum, completed
>> documentation, and libpq support.  I'll add it to the commit fest in the
>> hope  that someone else can look it over in detail.

> I've attached a slightly edited patch which fixes a compiler warning in 
> encode.c, too.

Committed with assorted corrections.  I have not done anything about
the issues mentioned in
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/21837.1248215656@sss.pgh.pa.us
mainly that pg_dump's treatment of large-object contents is not safe
against changes of standard_conforming_strings.  I think that ought to
get dealt with before moving on.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bernd Helmle
Date:
Subject: Re: bytea vs. pg_dump
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Alpha Releases: Docs?