Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [PATCH] Largeobject access controls

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 (view raw or flat)
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



In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: KaiGai KoheiDate: 2009-08-28 06:09:08
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Largeobject access controls
Previous:From: Greg StarkDate: 2009-08-28 04:59:33
Subject: Re: 8.5 release timetable, again

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group