| From: | Clodoaldo <clodoaldo(dot)pinto(dot)neto(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Andrew Chernow" <andrew(at)esilo(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Jorge Godoy" <jgodoy(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Andrew Chernow" <pg-job(at)esilo(dot)com>, "Jeremy Haile" <jhaile(at)fastmail(dot)fm>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Database versus filesystem for storing images |
| Date: | 2007-01-06 13:23:43 |
| Message-ID: | a595de7a0701060523k76d4fb25lfbd3fed6e38e3155@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
2007/1/6, Andrew Chernow <andrew(at)esilo(dot)com>:
> >>>apache has very good page and image caching. You could take advantage
> >>>of that using this technique.
>
> > I wonder why this HTTP cache headers argument didn't surface in this
> > heated debate.
>
> I did other up this argument by the way.
Sorry, I understood you were talking about server side caching while
what I refer to is client side caching.
Regards,
--
Clodoaldo Pinto Neto
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2007-01-06 15:40:21 | Re: Database versus filesystem for storing images |
| Previous Message | Andrew Chernow | 2007-01-06 12:48:07 | Re: Database versus filesystem for storing images |