| 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 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| 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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-11-29 00:57:07 | Re: Status of server side Large Object support? |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2004-11-29 00:03:19 | Re: Stopgap solution for table-size-estimate updating |