Re: PQexec() 8191 bytes limit and text fields

From: "Mitch Vincent" <mvincent(at)cablespeed(dot)com>
To: "Steve Howe" <howe(at)carcass(dot)dhs(dot)org>
Cc: "Hackers List" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PQexec() 8191 bytes limit and text fields
Date: 2001-07-18 15:06:12
Message-ID: 006901c10f9b$2f57b830$1251000a@Mitch
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

First, are you using the latest PG? I was under the impression that all
the hard-coded limitations on size had been eliminated in the latest
releases. I know for an absolute fact that I can insert multi-megabyte sized
text chunks in PG 7.1.2 as I've done just that before...

Good luck!

-Mitch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Howe" <howe(at)carcass(dot)dhs(dot)org>
To: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 4:51 AM
Subject: [HACKERS] PQexec() 8191 bytes limit and text fields

> Hello all,
>
>
> Writing my interface application, which use the PQexec library, I
> came across the PQexec() queries 8191 bytes limit.
> What useful are 4Gb text fields if I have this limit ?
> I mean, if a user make an update to this field, with a large value
> (let's say, 4Mb), do I have to call PQexec multiple (more then 500) times,
> concatenating the strings each time I call it ??? Can't this be better
> implemented ? This is too slow, and generates much more traffic then I
ever
> wish.
> This problem also plagues the large objects API, since they're
only
> a wrapper to the built-in large objects API.
> Does anyone have a better way of doing this ?
>
> Best Regards,
> Steve Howe
> http://www.vitavoom.com
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/search.mpl
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2001-07-18 15:09:46 Re: AW: Idea: recycle WAL segments, don't delete/recreate ' em
Previous Message Philip Warner 2001-07-18 14:58:26 Re: pg_depend