| From: | Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PgHacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: varlena beyond 1GB and matrix |
| Date: | 2016-12-23 01:44:39 |
| Message-ID: | CADyhKSX1khGr4xsZZt1HQvmeTf3kuu1ysT3X0BEVuggAL9=V-w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2016-12-23 8:23 GMT+09:00 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 10:44 PM, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> wrote:
>>> Handling objects >1GB at all seems like the harder part of the
>>> problem.
>>>
>> I could get your point almost. Does the last line above mention about
>> amount of the data object >1GB? even if the "super-varlena" format
>> allows 64bit length?
>
> Sorry, I can't understand your question about what I wrote.
>
I thought you just pointed out it is always harder part to treat large
amount of data even if data format allows >1GB or more. Right?
--
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kohei KaiGai | 2016-12-23 01:49:43 | Re: varlena beyond 1GB and matrix |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-12-23 01:27:14 | Re: Potential data loss of 2PC files |