Re: [GENERAL] Large Object questions...

From: "John Huttley" <john(at)mwk(dot)co(dot)nz>
To: "Herouth Maoz" <herouth(at)oumail(dot)openu(dot)ac(dot)il>
Cc: "PGSQL-Interfaces" <pgsql-interfaces(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Large Object questions...
Date: 1999-08-01 20:58:10
Message-ID: 001401bedc60$91339300$1401a8c0@Mr_Creosote.MWK.co.nz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-interfaces

Yes, that is a problem in general.

I guess we need to improve the dump/restore utilities.

And certainly, deleteing a row with a LO in it should
automatically delete the LO.

-----Original Message-----
From: Herouth Maoz <herouth(at)oumail(dot)openu(dot)ac(dot)il>
To: John Huttley <john(at)mwk(dot)co(dot)nz>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgreSQL(dot)org <pgsql-general(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Date: Monday, 2 August 1999 01:26
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Large Object questions...

>IMO, if you need a specialized backup script, plus a non-standard interface
>for writing into them and reading from them, and they are not deleted when
>you drop the row referring to them, then you may as well use files, and
>store only the path in Postgres for easy lookup.
>
>Herouth
>

Browse pgsql-interfaces by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Collin F. Lynch 1999-08-01 21:49:51 Re: [INTERFACES] libpgtcl.so.2.0 Tom Wins a Nickel.
Previous Message Jens Glaser 1999-08-01 19:02:31 setTransactionIsolation support for JDBC driver (patch)