Re: [HACKERS] SPI procedure for removing large objects

From: Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: peter(at)retep(dot)org(dot)uk (Peter T Mount)
Cc: daveh(at)insightdist(dot)com, serg(at)gate(dot)informika(dot)ru, hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] SPI procedure for removing large objects
Date: 1998-08-05 21:40:06
Message-ID: 199808052140.RAA10748@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> On Wed, 5 Aug 1998, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > > Peter,
> > >
> > > I have just finished up some other stuff in the backend, and I was
> > > wondering what to do next. My personal list include a cleanup of the lo
> > > type. Specifically:
> > >
> > > 1. Assign a fixed OID to the LO type so that attributes of this type
> > > can easily be identified.
> > >
> > > 2. Write a VACUUM LO procedure.
> > >
> > > 3. Extend/verify the existing internal lo functions to work with the
> > > new type.
> > >
> > > I know that more can/should be done in this area, but I only have so much
> > > time. I am aware the you have done some work on this in the contrib area.
> > > Were you planning on handling any (or all) of these issues as part of the
> > > 6.4 base release? I will gladly move on to something else.
> > >
> >
> > We should also make a large object type, rather than using inv_ to
> > identify it. It is on the TODO list, and I can implement it whenever
> > you want.
>
> agreed - although that would imply a different method of storing them. One
> of the problems I have with VACUUM LO is that using the existing oid
> method (for compatibility) would not work with the new type.
>
> Either using a different form of storage, or a different prefix would sort
> this problem (the latter would be the easiest).
>

OK, give me a day or two.

--
Bruce Momjian | 830 Blythe Avenue
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
+ If your life is a hard drive, | (610) 353-9879(w)
+ Christ can be your backup. | (610) 853-3000(h)

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 1998-08-05 21:41:20 Re: [HACKERS] CVS and the backend
Previous Message Peter T Mount 1998-08-05 21:14:55 CVS and the backend