| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | oliver_schmidt_(at)hotmail(dot)de, pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Further clarification in documentation: No deletion of unreferenced large objects |
| Date: | 2023-06-12 16:11:32 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwapNqDgnLo+V3Hy6shsSqHhsGg-3pQ4Rhq42DqAv4dxmA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 8:32 AM PG Doc comments form <noreply(at)postgresql(dot)org>
wrote:
You may be onto something, but:
>
> Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/15/datatype-binary.html
This page isn't relevant to the discussion at hand as it doesn't have
anything to do with large objects. Whether it should would be a different
complaint.
> When deleting a row that references (contains) a large object, I think that
> most users expect the DBMS to take care of the, now unreferenced, BLOB.
On what grounds? To me this looks just like any other foreign key
situation and removing FK rows does not impact the PK. What would lead one
to think large objects behave differently?
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Laurenz Albe | 2023-06-12 16:48:54 | Re: Further clarification in documentation: No deletion of unreferenced large objects |
| Previous Message | Erik Wienhold | 2023-06-12 15:47:49 | Re: Further clarification in documentation: No deletion of unreferenced large objects |