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

Re: Largeobject Access Controls (r2460)

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Greg Smith" <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "KaiGai Kohei" <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "KaiGai Kohei" <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, "Takahiro Itagaki" <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Jaime Casanova" <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>
Subject: Re: Largeobject Access Controls (r2460)
Date: 2010-01-24 17:56:49
Message-ID: (view raw or whole thread)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> It might be better to try a test case with lighter-weight objects,
> say 5 million simple functions.
So the current database is expendable?  I'd just as soon delete it
before creating the other one, if you're fairly confident the other
one will do it.

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2010-01-24 18:02:25
Subject: Re: Review: listagg aggregate
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-01-24 17:54:54
Subject: Re: tab completion for prepared transactions?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2015 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group