From: | "Rod Taylor" <rbt(at)barchord(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Chris Bitmead" <chris(at)bitmead(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: TOAST and TEXT |
Date: | 2001-10-10 01:45:23 |
Message-ID: | 000901c1512d$3c2a7c40$8001a8c0@jester |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
It should be noted that there is still a limit of about 1GB if I
remember correctly.
--
Rod Taylor
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the
truth, and what really happened.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Bitmead" <chris(at)bitmead(dot)com>
To: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2001 9:33 PM
Subject: [HACKERS] TOAST and TEXT
> Hi,
>
> Now that postgresql doesn't have field size limits, it seems to
> me they should be good for storing large blobs, even if it means
> having to uuencode them to be non-binary or whatever. I don't
> like the old large object implementation, I need to store very large
> numbers of objects and unless this implementation has changed
> in recent times it won't cut it.
>
> So my question is, I assume TEXT is the best data type to store
> large things in, what precisely is the range of characters that
> I can store in TEXT? Is it only characters ascii <= 127, or is
> it only printable characters, or everything except '\0' or what?
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of
broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2001-10-10 01:57:10 | Re: [HACKERS] What about CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION? |
Previous Message | Chris Bitmead | 2001-10-10 01:33:04 | TOAST and TEXT |