| From: | Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to> |
|---|---|
| To: | James Neff <jneff(at)tethyshealth(dot)com> |
| Cc: | John McCawley <nospam(at)hardgeus(dot)com>, Clodoaldo <clodoaldo(dot)pinto(dot)neto(at)gmail(dot)com>, imageguy <imageguy1206(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Database versus filesystem for storing images |
| Date: | 2007-01-05 21:51:59 |
| Message-ID: | 20070105215159.GA2135@wolff.to |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 15:26:45 -0500,
James Neff <jneff(at)tethyshealth(dot)com> wrote:
> "... and Moses said unto them, 'The eleventh commandment : thou shalt
> store images in a database!'..."
>
> What if you had another database where you stored just the images and
> not back it up if you don't want to?
I think the main reason to keep images in the database is if you need
transactional semantics. If you are updating images and transactions that
started before the update, need to see the old version you are going to
want them in the database. I suspect this need isn't very common though.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeremy Haile | 2007-01-05 21:54:15 | Re: Database versus filesystem for storing images |
| Previous Message | Andrew Chernow | 2007-01-05 21:42:33 | Re: Database versus filesystem for storing images |