| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: security checks for largeobjects? |
| Date: | 2009-06-22 15:31:45 |
| Message-ID: | 18600.1245684705@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 05:18:51PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> MED is management of external data, whereas the large objects are internal,
>> no?
> It depends on your definition. The lo interface is pretty much to
> objects on the file system directly.
LO's are transaction-controlled, and they're not (readily) accessible
from outside the database. Seems rather completely different from
regular filesystem files.
(In any case, there wasn't anything I liked about SQL/MED's ideas about
external files, so I'm not in favor of modeling LO management after that.)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2009-06-22 15:34:49 | Re: 8.4 open item: copy performance regression? |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2009-06-22 15:25:16 | Re: 8.4 open item: copy performance regression? |