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

Re: Status of server side Large Object support?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: David Garamond <lists(at)zara(dot)6(dot)isreserved(dot)com>
Cc: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>,Thomas Hallgren <thhal(at)mailblocks(dot)com>,Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>,"pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>,bryan(at)bulten(dot)ca
Subject: Re: Status of server side Large Object support?
Date: 2004-11-29 00:57:07
Message-ID: 22832.1101689827@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
David Garamond <lists(at)zara(dot)6(dot)isreserved(dot)com> writes:
> I find it nonintuitive and hard to remember. Perhaps something like this 
> is better (I know, it's probably too late):

>   ALTER [ COLUMN ] column SET STORAGE { INLINE | EXTERNAL }
>   ALTER [ COLUMN ] column SET COMPRESSION { YES | NO }

The semantics are not simply two independent variables, however.
In particular, IIRC the precedence of different possible actions
is such that you couldn't cleanly express it that way.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2004-11-29 01:13:49
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Path expansion in initdb
Previous:From: David GaramondDate: 2004-11-29 00:22:18
Subject: Re: Status of server side Large Object support?

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