| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Extending varlena |
| Date: | 2008-08-19 09:11:51 |
| Message-ID: | 200808191211.52799.peter_e@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Am Monday, 18. August 2008 schrieb Tom Lane:
> - permissions features (more than "none" anyway)
> - better management of orphaned objects (obsoleting vacuumlo)
> - support > 16TB of large objects (maybe partition pg_largeobject?)
> - dump and restore probably need improvement to be practical for such
> large data volumes
If you replace the third point by "maybe partition TOAST tables", replace
large object handle by TOAST pointer, and create an API to work on TOAST
pointers, how are the two so much different? And why should they be? I can
see that there are going to be needs to access large data with interfaces
that are not traditional SQL, but at least the storage handling could be the
same. That way you would solve the first two points and others for free.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2008-08-19 09:14:47 | Re: Overhauling GUCS |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-08-19 09:11:35 | Re: possible minor EXPLAIN bug? |