Re: [INTERFACES] Problems with postgres V6.5.3 large objects

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

Browse pgsql-interfaces by date

  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