| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Andy Samuel" <andysamuel(at)geocities(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: large object implementation |
| Date: | 2001-06-12 06:43:24 |
| Message-ID: | 7913.992328204@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Andy Samuel" <andysamuel(at)geocities(dot)com> writes:
> I wonder why all large objects is placed in one system table
> pg_largeobject ).
Why not? There's no tight limit on the size of a table.
> I just want to trow an idea, why not create a similiar table and added pglo
> ( something like pglo_tablename ).
> This way, the large objects will be spread in every table that has the blob
> type.
But large objects aren't blobs, if by blob you mean something that's
tied to a single table. There's not a way to associate a large object
with a particular table. Besides which, we already have TOAST, which
seems to do what you're thinking of.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-06-12 06:55:23 | Re: Australian timezone configure option |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-06-12 06:32:05 | Re: Calling lo_open within user defined C function |