Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>> It's not. If we really want to tackle this root and branch without
>> upsetting legacy code, I think we'd need to have a way of marking
>> data items as binary in the grammar, e.g.
>>
>> create function myfunc(myarg binary bytea) returns binary bytea
>> language plperl as $$ ...$$;
>>
>
> This ought to be a property of data type plus language, not a property
> of a function.
>
>
Why should it?
And how would you do it in such a way that it didn't break legacy code?
My GUC proposal would have made it language+type specific, but Tom
didn't like that approach.
cheers
andrew
