Re: bytea or large objects?

Peter Wilson wrote:

> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
>>
>>> I've just re-written our Whitebeam code to drop large-objects in
>>> favour of BYTEA fields.
>>>
>>> All the old problems of large objects in backups exist, but the
>>> killer for us was that none of the current replication systems, at
>>> least that I could find, would replicate large objects. This became
>>> a mandatory requirements for us.
>>
>>
>> Mammoth Replicator has always replicated Large Objects. The only
>> "backup" issue to large objects is that you have to pass a separate flag
>> and use the custom or tar format to dump them.
>>
>> Bytea has its own issues mostly based around memory usage.
>>
>> I am not saying you should or shouldn't switch as it really depends
>> on your needs but the information above just isn't quite accurate.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Joshua D. Drake
>>
Thanks Peter, Joshua,

On this information I will probably opt for BYTEA. I do not use
replication but aim to in the future, and would like to keep as many
options open as possible. The memory problem of large BYTEA arrays does
bother me. It would be nice to be able to open these types as file
streams like the large object type and get the best of both worlds. Is
this feasible?

Best regards,
Howard Cole
www.selestial.com

> I should have added that my search was limited to open source/free
> replication
> systems.
>
>>
>>>
>>> I'd have to have a *very* good reason to use large objects over
>>> BYTEA now.
>>>
>>> Pete
>>> --
>>> http://www.whitebeam.org
>>> http://www.yellowhawk.co.uk
>>> -----
>>>
>>> ---------------------------(end of
>>> broadcast)---------------------------
>>> TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
>>
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
>