From: | Erik Jones <erik(at)myemma(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Harald Armin Massa" <haraldarminmassa(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: large objects,was: Restoring 8.0 db to 8.1 |
Date: | 2008-01-08 16:01:20 |
Message-ID: | FBB5D62C-E7AC-426D-B219-B3AEED519B46@myemma.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Jan 8, 2008, at 9:13 AM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Jan 8, 2008 9:01 AM, Harald Armin Massa
> <haraldarminmassa(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> Not likely to change in the future, no. Slony uses triggers to
>>> manage the
>>> changed rows. We can't fire triggers on large object events, so
>>> there's no
>>> way for Slony to know what happened.
>>
>> that leads me to a question I often wanted to ask:
>>
>> is there any reason to create NEW PostgreSQL databases using Large
>> Objects, now that there is bytea and TOAST? (besides of legacy needs)
>>
>> as much as I read, they take special care in dump/restore; force the
>> use of some special APIs on creating, do not work with Slony ....
>
> The primary advantage of large objects is that you can read like byte
> by byte, like a file.
Also, with bytea (and any other varying length data type) there is
still a limit of 1G via TOASTing. Large Objects will get you up to
2G for one field.
Erik Jones
DBA | Emma®
erik(at)myemma(dot)com
800.595.4401 or 615.292.5888
615.292.0777 (fax)
Emma helps organizations everywhere communicate & market in style.
Visit us online at http://www.myemma.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Sergei Shelukhin | 2008-01-08 16:15:11 | Re: deadlock priority? |
Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2008-01-08 15:13:29 | Re: large objects,was: Restoring 8.0 db to 8.1 |