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

Re: Proposal: new large object API

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Proposal: new large object API
Date: 2008-03-20 14:24:35
Message-ID: 8072.1206023075@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
> It seems I forgot about the serer side lo_import. Included are the
> patches to add new form of lo_import which accepts the large object id
> as the second argument.

> Comments, objection?

Breaking the type_sanity test is not acceptable.  Put in a second C
function.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tatsuo IshiiDate: 2008-03-20 14:32:53
Subject: Re: Proposal: new large object API
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-03-20 14:06:06
Subject: Re: Problem identifying constraints which should not be inherited

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Tatsuo IshiiDate: 2008-03-20 14:32:53
Subject: Re: Proposal: new large object API
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2008-03-20 14:07:43
Subject: Re: Moving snapshot code around

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