| From: | Andreas Joseph Krogh <andreas(at)visena(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Achilleas Mantzios <achill(at)matrix(dot)gatewaynet(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pglogical vs. built-in logical replication in pg-10 |
| Date: | 2017-06-22 17:45:17 |
| Message-ID: | VisenaEmail.17.969f597d04a91a24.15cd0e5d6b1@tc7-visena |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
På torsdag 22. juni 2017 kl. 17:10:40, skrev Achilleas Mantzios <
achill(at)matrix(dot)gatewaynet(dot)com <mailto:achill(at)matrix(dot)gatewaynet(dot)com>>:
[snip]
What's so better in LO's VS bytea? You do a lot updates on the binary data,
changing only parts of it?
BYTEA really sucks when dealing with large objects and streaming to clients
(JDBC). The only solution (I've found) which doesn't explode in memory-usage is
using LOs (OIDs). Note that we're dealing with multi-gigabytes objects, which
need to be "transactional safe" (hence stored in the DB).
-- Andreas Joseph Krogh
CTO / Partner - Visena AS
Mobile: +47 909 56 963
andreas(at)visena(dot)com <mailto:andreas(at)visena(dot)com>
www.visena.com <https://www.visena.com>
<https://www.visena.com>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ray Stell | 2017-06-22 19:06:32 | 10beta1 role |
| Previous Message | Andreas Joseph Krogh | 2017-06-22 17:41:15 | Re: pglogical vs. built-in logical replication in pg-10 |