| From: | "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Harald Armin Massa" <haraldarminmassa(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: large objects,was: Restoring 8.0 db to 8.1 |
| Date: | 2008-01-08 15:13:29 |
| Message-ID: | dcc563d10801080713g1740365etf3d50ae061d34ceb@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Jan 8, 2008 9:01 AM, Harald Armin Massa <haraldarminmassa(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Not likely to change in the future, no. Slony uses triggers to manage the
> > changed rows. We can't fire triggers on large object events, so there's no
> > way for Slony to know what happened.
>
> that leads me to a question I often wanted to ask:
>
> is there any reason to create NEW PostgreSQL databases using Large
> Objects, now that there is bytea and TOAST? (besides of legacy needs)
>
> as much as I read, they take special care in dump/restore; force the
> use of some special APIs on creating, do not work with Slony ....
The primary advantage of large objects is that you can read like byte
by byte, like a file.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Erik Jones | 2008-01-08 16:01:20 | Re: large objects,was: Restoring 8.0 db to 8.1 |
| Previous Message | Harald Armin Massa | 2008-01-08 15:01:45 | large objects,was: Restoring 8.0 db to 8.1 |