| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | cjwhite(at)cisco(dot)com |
| Cc: | pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [JDBC] Problems with Large Objects using Postgres 7.2.1 |
| Date: | 2003-04-09 17:28:21 |
| Message-ID: | 8672.1049909301@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-jdbc |
"Chris White" <cjwhite(at)cisco(dot)com> writes:
> I didn't looked at the data in the table. However, when I did a lo_export of
> one of the objects I only got a 2K file output.
IIRC, we store 2K per row in pg_largeobject. So this is consistent with
the idea that row 0 is present for the LO ID, while row 1 is not. What
I'm wondering is if the other hundred-odd rows that would be needed to
hold a 300K large object are there or not. Also, do the rows contain
the appropriate data for their parts of the overall large object?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2003-04-09 17:39:44 | Re: Compile errors on AIX |
| Previous Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2003-04-09 17:28:02 | Re: Compile errors on AIX |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephan Szabo | 2003-04-09 18:56:06 | Re: Index not used, |
| Previous Message | Chris White | 2003-04-09 17:04:09 | Re: Problems with Large Objects using Postgres 7.2.1 |