Re: about lob(idea)

From: Martín Marqués <martin(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: alex2010 <alexeysedov1982(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: about lob(idea)
Date: 2015-05-26 22:01:19
Message-ID: 5564ED2F.2030901@2ndquadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

El 25/05/15 a las 06:13, alex2010 escribió:
> Maybe it makes sense to add ability to store large objects in the same table space as the table.
> Or an opportunity - to specify table space for a large object.
> Do you have anything in todolists about it?

This is something which has popped up on me more than once when giving
talks about storing files in PostgreSQL (last PgDay Argentina there was
quite a debate about it, particularly when bringing up the bytea <-> LO
comparison). The concerns the people exposed had different end goals.

One of the main concerns was the fact that all LO live in a common
catalog table (pg_largeobjects).

If the LO were stored per-database, with a some alike schema as
pg_largeobjects, then they could be placed on any tablespace available,
and even get dumped on a normal DB dump, which makes administration much
simpler.

Cheers,

--
Martín Marqués http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Arjen Nienhuis 2015-05-26 22:07:59 Run a test instance from the source directory
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2015-05-26 21:41:09 Re: ERROR: MultiXactId xxxx has not been created yet -- apparent wraparound