X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F5189DD768 for ; Fri, 2 Dec 2005 19:01:22 -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 71319-07 for ; Fri, 2 Dec 2005 19:01:18 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 278FA9DD718 for ; Fri, 2 Dec 2005 19:01:18 -0400 (AST) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id jB2N0xxH008550; Fri, 2 Dec 2005 18:00:59 -0500 (EST) To: "Luke Lonergan" cc: "Stephen Frost" , "David Lang" , "Steve Oualline" , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Database restore speed In-reply-to: References: Comments: In-reply-to "Luke Lonergan" message dated "Fri, 02 Dec 2005 13:29:47 -0800" Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 18:00:59 -0500 Message-ID: <8549.1133564459@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.002 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.002] X-Spam-Score: 0.002 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200512/85 X-Sequence-Number: 15906 "Luke Lonergan" writes: > One more thing - this is really about the lack of a cross-platform binary > input standard for Postgres IMO. If there were such a thing, it *would* be > safe to do this. The current Binary spec is not cross-platform AFAICS, it > embeds native representations of the DATUMs, and does not specify a > universal binary representation of same. Sure it does ... at least as long as you are willing to assume everybody uses IEEE floats, and if they don't you have semantic problems translating float datums anyhow. What we lack is documentation, more than functionality. regards, tom lane