From: | Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Largeobject access controls |
Date: | 2009-08-28 05:52:33 |
Message-ID: | 20090828141700.8F10.52131E4D@oss.ntt.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com> wrote:
> The pg_largeobject system catalog is reworked to manage its metadata.
>
> CATALOG(pg_largeobject,2613)
> {
> Oid loowner; /* OID of the owner */
> Oid lochunk; /* OID of the data chunks */
> aclitem loacl[1]; /* access permissions */
> } FormData_pg_largeobject;
>
> Actual data chunks are stored in the toast relation of pg_largeobject,
> and its chunk_id is stored in the pg_largeobject.lochunk.
A bit acrobatic, but insteresting idea.
I have some random comments:
* Do you measure performance of the new LO implementation?
AFAIK, Users expect performance benefits to LO; TOASTed
bytea slows down when the size of data is 100KB or greater
even if they don't use random seeks.
* We might take care of DROP ROLE and REASSIGN/DROP OWNED.
Or, we might have large object without owner.
It might require full-scanning of pg_largeobject table,
but we can accept it because the size of pg_largeobject
will be smaller; we have actual data out of the table.
* Don't we also need "ALTER LARGE OBJECT <oid> OWNER TO <user>"
for consistency?
Regards,
---
ITAGAKI Takahiro
NTT Open Source Software Center
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | KaiGai Kohei | 2009-08-28 06:09:08 | Re: [PATCH] Largeobject access controls |
Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2009-08-28 04:59:33 | Re: 8.5 release timetable, again |