IndexedDb: Store blobs as array buffers if necessary #266
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Safari in private browsing windows doesn't appear to support reading and writing
Blobinstances to IndexedDB properly. Since we can fairly easily supportArrayBuffers on the read path in addition to blobs, we run a feature detection to see if we should write the array buffer directly instead of wrapping it in aBlob.A question is if we should always store blobs as array buffers and avoid the conversion (there's no strong benefit of blobs for memory efficiency here since we have to load the entire file system into memory either way).