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

Re: Status of server side Large Object support?

From: David Garamond <lists(at)zara(dot)6(dot)isreserved(dot)com>
To: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
Cc: 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 00:22:18
Message-ID: 41AA6BBA.2050800@zara.6.isreserved.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Joe Conway wrote:
> Not if the column is storage type EXTERNAL. See a past discussion here:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2003-07/msg01447.php

what is the reasoning behind this syntax?

  ALTER TABLE [ ONLY ] table [ * ]
  ALTER [ COLUMN ] column SET STORAGE
  { PLAIN | EXTERNAL | EXTENDED | MAIN }

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 }

--
dave

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2004-11-29 00:57:07
Subject: Re: Status of server side Large Object support?
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2004-11-29 00:03:19
Subject: Re: Stopgap solution for table-size-estimate updating

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