| From: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)yahoo(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: tuptoaster.c must *not* use SnapshotAny |
| Date: | 2002-01-18 05:45:47 |
| Message-ID: | 3C47B68B.192A86CF@tpf.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > > Agreed. I think that was the reason we kept TOAST and large objects,
> > > because large objects were designed for random read-write. If we can
> > > get large objects to auto-delete, probably with pg_depend, we can then
> > > use them seamlessly with BLOB I/O routines.
> >
> > Oops I seem to have missed the discussion about excluding
> > bytea from the candidate from BLOB. Yes now we seem to have
> > a good reason to exclude existent type from the candidate
> > of BLOB.
>
> Well, we had the discussion when Jan was adding TOAST, and Jan was
> saying we still need large objects for I/O purposes and for very large
> items.
Though I've often seen the reference to bytea BLOB
I remember no clear negation. Don't we have to negate
it clearly from the first ?
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2002-01-18 05:48:46 | Re: [PATCHES] guc |
| Previous Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2002-01-18 05:38:57 | Re: age() function? |