| From: | Adam Haberlach <haberlaa(at)ricochet(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Matthew Hagerty <matthew(at)wolfepub(dot)com>, pgsql-interfaces(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [INTERFACES] Large objects, why not use the filesystem? |
| Date: | 1999-01-31 20:51:03 |
| Message-ID: | 19990131125103.D22196@ricochet.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-interfaces |
On Sun, Jan 31, 1999 at 03:26:15PM -0500, Matthew Hagerty wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> I always see posts of people trying to get their large binary and text
> objects into and out of the database somehow. I was wondering if there is
> some reason why just storing a filename in the table would be a bad thing?
> This way you can let the file system worry about storing the data (since
> that is what the file system is good at.) I understand that you probably
> could not access the data via ODBC, but if you are writing your frontend in
> C or Perl, etc. then you would simply use the filename stored in the table
> to access the data.
Because the database is in a different room then the client.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 1999-01-31 22:41:35 | Re: [INTERFACES] Large objects, why not use the filesystem? |
| Previous Message | Matthew Hagerty | 1999-01-31 20:26:15 | Large objects, why not use the filesystem? |