On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 10:38:59AM +0900, KaiGai Kohei wrote:
> David Fetter wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 11:31:45AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> 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.
> > Not according to SQL/MED.
> >> (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.)
> > Good point ;)
> I would like to develop the feature independent from SQL/MED.
If, as I suspect, SQL/MED does something that would collide with your
feature, you're about to let yourself in for even more pain, as we
tend to go with standard features over ones that would be unique to
PostgreSQL, given the choice.
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Andrew Dunstan||Date: 2009-06-23 04:11:16|
|Subject: Re: building without perl|
|Previous:||From: KaiGai Kohei||Date: 2009-06-23 04:06:02|
|Subject: Re: security checks for largeobjects?|