Re: Database versus filesystem for storing images

5 Jan 2007 06:59:18 -0800, imageguy <imageguy1206(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>
> I think I know the answer,

If you know the answer please tell it as I have read some discussions
on the web and although I have decided on a solution I'm still not
sure about the best answer, if there is a best answer after all.

> but if you don't have an "application
> server" - ie a webserver, etc,

Yes I have an application server, the Apache server.

> and many of the workstations/clients
> that need access to the images but may not have access to a network
> share,

network share? I don't understand. The images will be loaded by html
pages with the img tag like in <img
src="http://domain.com/images/xxx.jpg">

> isn't the database the only choice ?

No. It is one of the choices. The other is to store the images in the
file system, in a directory readable by Apache.

> - or is there a postgresql function/utility that will "server" the
> file from the file system based on the reference/link embeded in the
> database ??

I think some procedure languages can read files. In this case what
would be the gain in introducing a middle man, the db server?

Regards,
--
Clodoaldo Pinto Neto