From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | David Garamond <lists(at)zara(dot)6(dot)isreserved(dot)com> |
Cc: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Thomas Hallgren <thhal(at)mailblocks(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, bryan(at)bulten(dot)ca |
Subject: | Re: Status of server side Large Object support? |
Date: | 2004-11-29 00:57:07 |
Message-ID: | 22832.1101689827@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
David Garamond <lists(at)zara(dot)6(dot)isreserved(dot)com> writes:
> I find it nonintuitive and hard to remember. Perhaps something like this
> is better (I know, it's probably too late):
> ALTER [ COLUMN ] column SET STORAGE { INLINE | EXTERNAL }
> ALTER [ COLUMN ] column SET COMPRESSION { YES | NO }
The semantics are not simply two independent variables, however.
In particular, IIRC the precedence of different possible actions
is such that you couldn't cleanly express it that way.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-11-29 01:13:49 | Re: [HACKERS] Path expansion in initdb |
Previous Message | David Garamond | 2004-11-29 00:22:18 | Re: Status of server side Large Object support? |