| From: | "Stephen R(dot) van den Berg" <srb(at)cuci(dot)nl> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Extending varlena |
| Date: | 2008-08-20 07:36:01 |
| Message-ID: | 20080820073601.GB31607@cuci.nl |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>If you replace the third point by "maybe partition TOAST tables", replace
>large object handle by TOAST pointer, and create an API to work on TOAST
>pointers, how are the two so much different? And why should they be? I can
>see that there are going to be needs to access large data with interfaces
>that are not traditional SQL, but at least the storage handling could be the
>same. That way you would solve the first two points and others for free.
I've long wondered why toast and large object storage is not one and the
same (indeed).
It seems a like a natural solution to marry the two.
--
Sincerely,
Stephen R. van den Berg.
E-mails should be like a lady's skirt:
Long enough to cover the subject, and short enough to be interesting.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2008-08-20 07:37:26 | Re: A smaller default postgresql.conf |
| Previous Message | Jaime Casanova | 2008-08-20 06:22:26 | Re: A smaller default postgresql.conf |