Joseph Koshakow <koshy44@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Is this an intentional decision to not support a binary encoding for > aclitem types? Or is it just a lack of a feature? I think it's at least somewhat intentional, to have a core type that has no binary I/O so that that case can be tested. In any event, a binary representation probably wouldn't be terribly useful, as it'd contain role OIDs that wouldn't reliably transport from one system to the next, and also privilege bitmasks that we sometimes redefine. regards, tom lane
