RE: [HACKERS] LONG

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us]
>
> > > I am suggesting the longoid is not the oid of the primary or long*
> > > table, but a unque id we assigned just to number all parts of
> the long*
> > > tuple. I thought that's what your oid was for.
> > >
> > Unfortunately I couldn't follow this issue correctly.
> > Is the format of long value relation different from Jan's original now ?
> >
> > - At CREATE TABLE, a long value relation named
> > "_LONG<tablename>" is created for those tables who need it.
> > And of course dropped and truncated appropriate. The schema
> > of this table is
> >
> > rowid Oid, -- oid of our main data row
>
> I am suggesting a unique oid just to store this long value. The new oid
> gets stored in the primary table, and on every row of the long* table.
>

Hmm,we could delete long values easily using rowid in case of
heap_delete() .......

>
> > Seems we could even update partially(specified chunk_seq only)
> > without problem.
>
> That could be done, but seems too rare because the new data would have
> to be the same length. Doesn't seem worthit, though others may
> disagree.
>

First,I wanted to emphasize that we don't have to update any long value
tuples if we don't update long values. It's a special case of partial
update.

Second,large object has an feature like this. If we would replace large
object by LONG,isn't it needed ?

Regards.

Hiroshi Inoue
Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp