From: | Konstantin Izmailov <kizmailov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: issue with lo_lseek - it returns 4 |
Date: | 2009-06-18 00:30:00 |
Message-ID: | 1225592b0906171730k75fa9eb6t1ef74c8a93b0294f@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
It would be great to remove the limitation. I can image various
possibilities if Postgres can handle larger lo objects. For example, to
stream HD content from DB to a multimedia device for displaying.
Would that be technically hard to do? My impression is that lo has pretty
scalable implementation already.
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 4:05 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Konstantin Izmailov <pgfizm(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > Out of curiosity, what if lo object has size > 4GB, how lo_tell return
> its
> > size? Looks like this is an interface issue.
>
> That's simple: it can't have such a size.
>
> Allowing LOs bigger than 2GB is on the TODO list, but don't hold your
> breath. Most people who are interested in objects that large are
> storing them out in the filesystem anyway.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Sam Wun | 2009-06-18 09:28:16 | Too many postgres instances |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-06-17 23:18:51 | Re: Some strange bug with drop table with slony cluster |