| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Ron Snyder <snyder(at)roguewave(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: postgreSQL 7.3.8, pg_dump not able to find large o |
| Date: | 2005-06-09 18:10:07 |
| Message-ID: | 42A885FF.7000908@commandprompt.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
> Nope. I'm feeling a strong urge to go fix it for 8.1 though.
>
> The question from the previous mail still stands: would anybody's
> applications be broken if we change the MVCC behavior of large objects?
Could you provide an instance where it might? I had always assumed (I
know, never assume) that large objects were MVCC safe. All of our
applications that work with binary data always use Large Objects.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
> (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org)
--
Your PostgreSQL solutions company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Programming, 24x7 support
Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting
Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-06-09 18:48:33 | Re: postgreSQL 7.3.8, pg_dump not able to find large o |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-06-09 17:56:33 | Re: postgreSQL 7.3.8, pg_dump not able to find large o |