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
>
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) |