| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Sergey Karin" <nil5-ksa(at)yandex(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Question about Large Objects |
| Date: | 2005-04-12 13:51:55 |
| Message-ID: | 15208.1113313915@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
"Sergey Karin" <nil5-ksa(at)yandex(dot)ru> writes:
> As I understood PostgreSQL allows to store large objects 2GB size maximum.
> Are there any plans to increase or removing that limitation?
I don't think anyone's really thought about it. To do it without
breaking backward compatibility, we'd have to invent a parallel 64-bit
LO API and propagate that clear out to the clients ... seems like a
pain in the neck for relatively small gain.
> If no, are there any abilities to store 10-20GB raster data (aero foto
> image) in postgreSQL?
You could break it into chunks, but it might be better to keep it in the
regular filesystem and just store a pathname in the database.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-04-12 14:17:47 | Re: serial type (text instead of integer) and duplicate keys |
| Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2005-04-12 13:45:26 | Re: What are the consequences of a bad database design (never seen that before !) |