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

Re: [HACKERS] text should be a blob field

From: "Thomas G(dot) Lockhart" <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>
To: Goran Thyni <goran(at)bildbasen(dot)se>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andreas(dot)Zeugswetter(at)telecom(dot)at, pgsql-hackers(at)hub(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] text should be a blob field
Date: 1998-03-03 16:45:23
Message-ID: 34FC33A3.9E5F371F@alumni.caltech.edu (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> Or simply call text-BLOBs "textblob" of something like that.
> What does SQL-92 say about BLOBs anyway?

Nothing afaik. That is why you get different meanings and usages between database
products. I'd like to keep "text" as a useful string type. Conventionally, generic
blobs are just binary objects with not much backend support (e.g. no useful
operators other than perhaps "=").

Imo generic blobs make more sense in a system without the capability to add types;
perhaps a solution for Postgres would look a little different. At the moment, the
frontend/backend protocol is different for large objects and everything else, so
it would be difficult to transparently introduce blobs which behave identically to
types which fit within a normal tuple.

                                                            - Tom


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Cristian GaftonDate: 1998-03-03 17:34:59
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL - the Linux of Databases...
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 1998-03-03 16:31:00
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] doc troubles.

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