Re: issue with lo_lseek - it returns 4

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
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  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