X-Original-To: pgsql-interfaces-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD94A9DD600;
	Tue,  6 Dec 2005 15:28:01 -0400 (AST)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 69361-10; Tue,  6 Dec 2005 15:28:00 -0400 (AST)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-
Received: from smtp.pzkagis.cz (gis6.netbox.cz [83.240.30.214])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6562E9DD612;
	Tue,  6 Dec 2005 15:27:55 -0400 (AST)
Received: (from luf@localhost)
	by smtp.pzkagis.cz (8.11.6/8.11.6) id jB6JRnw25115;
	Tue, 6 Dec 2005 20:27:49 +0100
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 20:27:49 +0100
From: Ludek Finstrle <luf@pzkagis.cz>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org, pgsql-odbc@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [ODBC] BLOB handling compatibility with PostgreSQL > 7.4
Message-ID: <20051206192749.GA24711@soptik.pzkagis.cz>
References: <438B792D.6030802@bnl.gov>
	<20051205212806.GA17690@soptik.pzkagis.cz>
	<20051206142811.GA23334@soptik.pzkagis.cz>
	<259.1133881501@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<20051206184402.GA24475@soptik.pzkagis.cz>
	<15186.1133896033@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <15186.1133896033@sss.pgh.pa.us>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 required=5 tests=[none]
X-Spam-Score: 0
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200512/10
X-Sequence-Number: 5878

> > I don't want to reinvent the wheel.
> 
> Why do you feel a need to distinguish the domain from its underlying
> type on the client side?  They're the same as regards representation
> and so on.

I need to determine wheter to use lo_import for large objects.
There is implementation in ODBC used type named "lo" (comapring type
oid).  Type oid doesn't represent only large objects.

> what representation to use etc.  Distinguishing domains made their job
> harder not easier.

I agree with you except lo implementation in ODBC ;-)

> If you want an add-on datatype that is really different from OID, then
> make a real datatype (CREATE TYPE).  You can still piggyback on OID as
> the representation type --- steal its I/O functions and so on.

Does it cover lo_export which need oid as second parameter?
I'm sorry I'm new in using large objects and creating new types.

Thanks a lot

Luf