Re: large object implementation

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Andy Samuel" <andysamuel(at)geocities(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: large object implementation
Date: 2001-06-12 06:43:24
Message-ID: 7913.992328204@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Andy Samuel" <andysamuel(at)geocities(dot)com> writes:
> I wonder why all large objects is placed in one system table
> pg_largeobject ).

Why not? There's no tight limit on the size of a table.

> I just want to trow an idea, why not create a similiar table and added pglo
> ( something like pglo_tablename ).
> This way, the large objects will be spread in every table that has the blob
> type.

But large objects aren't blobs, if by blob you mean something that's
tied to a single table. There's not a way to associate a large object
with a particular table. Besides which, we already have TOAST, which
seems to do what you're thinking of.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2001-06-12 06:55:23 Re: Australian timezone configure option
Previous Message Tom Lane 2001-06-12 06:32:05 Re: Calling lo_open within user defined C function