Re: External Large objects what became of them

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Willis, Ian (Ento, Canberra)" <Ian(dot)Willis(at)ento(dot)csiro(dot)au>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: External Large objects what became of them
Date: 2000-11-20 23:00:48
Message-ID: 13720.974761248@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

"Willis, Ian (Ento, Canberra)" <Ian(dot)Willis(at)ento(dot)csiro(dot)au> writes:
> http://www.xcf.berkeley.edu/~jmacd/xdelta.html

Ah, thanks for the pointer. I didn't know what you were talking about
before (a Google search had proven only that "xdelta" is a popular
project name...)

As far as I can tell from this, Xdelta wants to sit on top of a
database, not underneath one. So I fail to see why it cares what the
large object implementation technology is, or even whether the DB
uses such things at all.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2000-11-20 23:09:49 Re: select distinct on
Previous Message Tom Lane 2000-11-20 22:46:03 Re: External Large objects what became of them