| From: | Peter Eisentraut <e99re41(at)DoCS(dot)UU(dot)SE> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Jan Wieck <wieck(at)debis(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] LONG |
| Date: | 1999-12-11 16:14:40 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.GSO.4.02A.9912111712290.5375-100000@Krabba.DoCS.UU.SE |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 11 Dec 1999, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> In fact, you could get fancy and allow an update of a non-pg_long using
> column to not change pg_long at all. Just keep the same value in the
> column. If the transaction fails or succeeds, the pg_long is the same
> for that tuple. Of course, because an update is a delete and then an
> insert, that may be hard to do. For very long fields, it would be a win
> for UPDATE. You certainly couldn't do that with chained tuples.
While this is great and all, what will happen when long tuples finally get
done? Will you remove this, or keep it, or just make LONG and TEXT
equivalent? I fear that elaborate structures will be put in place here
that might perhaps only be of use for one release cycle.
--
Peter Eisentraut Sernanders vaeg 10:115
peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net 75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jan Wieck | 1999-12-11 16:21:28 | Last thoughts about LONG |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 1999-12-11 15:38:28 | Re: [HACKERS] LONG |