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
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 |