From: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: security checks for largeobjects? |
Date: | 2009-06-22 17:08:15 |
Message-ID: | 20090622170815.GA9092@fetter.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 11:31:45AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
> > On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 05:18:51PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >> MED is management of external data, whereas the large objects are
> >> internal, no?
>
> > It depends on your definition. The lo interface is pretty much to
> > objects on the file system directly.
>
> LO's are transaction-controlled, and they're not (readily)
> accessible from outside the database. Seems rather completely
> different from regular filesystem files.
Not according to SQL/MED.
> (In any case, there wasn't anything I liked about SQL/MED's ideas
> about external files, so I'm not in favor of modeling LO management
> after that.)
Good point ;)
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Brendan Jurd | 2009-06-22 17:16:08 | Re: BUG #4862: different results in to_date() between 8.3.7 & 8.4.RC1 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-06-22 17:00:04 | Re: 8.4 open item: copy performance regression? |