Re: Binary in/out for aclitem

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Radosław Smogura <rsmogura@softperience.eu>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2011-02-23T21:30:04Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
=?utf-8?q?Rados=C5=82aw_Smogura?= <rsmogura@softperience.eu> writes:
> Here is extended version, has version field (N_ACL_RIGHTS*2) and reserved 
> mask, as well definition is more general then def of PGSQL. In any way it 
> require that rights mades bit array.

You're going in quite the wrong direction here.  The consensus as I
understood it was that we should just use the text representation in
binary mode too, rather than inventing a separate representation that's
going to put a whole new set of constraints on what can happen to the
internal representation.  The proposal you have here has no redeeming
social value whatever, because nobody cares about the I/O efficiency
for aclitem (and even if anyone did, you've made no case that this would
actually be more efficient to use on the client side).

			regards, tom lane