Re: [PATCH] [v8.5] Security checks on largeobjects

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>
Cc: KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [v8.5] Security checks on largeobjects
Date: 2009-06-29 18:57:59
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de> writes:
> It might be interesting to dig into your proposal deeper in conjunction
> with TOAST (you've already mentioned this TODO). Having serial access with
> a nice interface into TOAST would be eliminating the need for
> pg_largeobject completely (i'm not a big fan of this one-big-system-table
> approach the old LO interface currently is).

Yeah, it would be more useful probably to fix that than to add
decoration to the LO facility. Making LO more usable is just going to
encourage people to bump into its other limitations (32-bit OIDs,
32-bit object size, finite maximum size of pg_largeobject, lack of
dead-object cleanup, etc etc).

regards, tom lane

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2009-06-29 19:01:12 Re: [PATCH] user mapping extension to pg_ident.conf
Previous Message Peter Hunsberger 2009-06-29 18:55:31 Re: Query progress indication - an implementation