Re: WG: [QUESTIONS] Re: [HACKERS] text should be a blob field

From: Peter T Mount <psqlhack(at)maidast(dot)demon(dot)co(dot)uk>
To: "Vadim B(dot) Mikheev" <vadim(at)sable(dot)krasnoyarsk(dot)su>
Cc: Zeugswetter Andreas SARZ <Andreas(dot)Zeugswetter(at)telecom(dot)at>, "'pgsql-hackers(at)hub(dot)org'" <pgsql-hackers(at)hub(dot)org>
Subject: Re: WG: [QUESTIONS] Re: [HACKERS] text should be a blob field
Date: 1998-03-08 11:09:03
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.3.95.980308110830.31676B-100000@maidast
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, 6 Mar 1998, Vadim B. Mikheev wrote:

> Zeugswetter Andreas SARZ wrote:
> >
> > > >> Allowing text to use blobs for values larger than the current block
> > > size
> > > >> would hit the same problem.
> > > > When I told about multi-representation feature I ment that applications
> > > > will not be affected by how text field is stored - in tuple or somewhere
> > >
> > > > else. Is this Ok for you ?
> > >
> > > This is also what I would have in mind. But I guess a change to the fe-be
> > > protocol would still be necessary, since the client now allocates
> > > a fixed amount of memory to receive one tuple, wasn't it ?
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I don't know, but imho it's not too hard to implement.
>
> Vadim

One thing, I don't allocate a fixed amount of memory for JDBC when
receiving tuples.

--
Peter T Mount petermount(at)earthling(dot)net or pmount(at)maidast(dot)demon(dot)co(dot)uk
Main Homepage: http://www.demon.co.uk/finder
Work Homepage: http://www.maidstone.gov.uk Work EMail: peter(at)maidstone(dot)gov(dot)uk

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Bussmann 1998-03-08 11:42:51 libpq and PQsetdb()
Previous Message Maarten Boekhold 1998-03-08 10:40:52 Re: [HACKERS] dec alpha/64bit stuff