Re: [HACKERS] Priorities for 6.6

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: Raw Message | Whole Thread | 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

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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