From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | dougt(at)mugc(dot)cc(dot)monash(dot)edu(dot)au |
Cc: | pgsql-interfaces(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [INTERFACES] Problems with postgres V6.5.3 large objects |
Date: | 1999-12-06 16:07:56 |
Message-ID: | 18743.944496476@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-interfaces |
Douglas Thomson <dougt(at)mugc(dot)cc(dot)monash(dot)edu(dot)au> writes:
>> Most of the developers have not wanted to put much effort into large
>> objects, since where we really want to go is to eliminate tuple size
>> restrictions; once that happens large objects will be much less
>> necessary.
> I am curious about the planned interface once tuple size restrictions
> are eliminated. I am using large objects, and want to make my
> application port as painlessly as possible.
This hasn't been thought about much, AFAIK. I agree that with large
fields in tuples, it'd be nice to have operations that read or write
portions of fields, and also ways to read/write binary data without any
encoding. But I'm not real sure what the API should look like. Are
there precedents in other DBMSes?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gary Stainburn | 1999-12-06 17:16:27 | locking on database updates |
Previous Message | Thomas Lockhart | 1999-12-06 15:41:59 | Re: [INTERFACES] Spanish format on date and numbers |