| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Priorities for 6.6 |
| Date: | 1999-06-05 15:38:46 |
| Message-ID: | 25979.928597126@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> writes:
>>>> eliminating the size restrictions on regular tuples.
>> Is this doable?
> Presumably we would have to work out a "chunking" client/server
> protocol to allow sending very large tuples.
I don't really see a need to change the protocol. It's true that
a single tuple containing a couple dozen megabytes (per someone's
recent example) would stress the system unpleasantly, but that would
be true in a *lot* of ways. Perhaps we should plan on keeping the
LO feature to allow for really huge objects.
As far as I've seen, 99% of users are not interested in storing objects
that are so large that handling them as single tuples would pose serious
performance problems. It's just that a hard limit at 8K (or any other
particular small number) is annoying.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 1999-06-05 16:54:44 | Re: contrib code for 6.5 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 1999-06-05 15:31:10 | Re: [HACKERS] Priorities for 6.6 |