| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Thomas Swan <tswan(at)olemiss(dot)edu>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: 7.2 items |
| Date: | 2001-06-27 18:54:54 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.30.0106272051470.729-100000@peter.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane writes:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> > Tom Lane writes:
> >> What for/why bother? A toastable bytea column would do just as well.
>
> > There's still a 1 or 2 GB limit for data stored in that.
>
> 1 Gb, I believe ... but LOs are not a lot better; they'd max out at 2 or
> at most 4 Gb, depending on whether the code always treats offsets as
> unsigned.
That can be fixed by adding a 64-bit aware equivalent of the existing lo_*
functions. I suppose it'd be a lot harder to make regular data types
handle long values.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net http://funkturm.homeip.net/~peter
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hannu Krosing | 2001-06-27 19:47:19 | Re: functions returning records |
| Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2001-06-27 18:33:35 | Re: Re: 7.2 items |