Re: Status of server side Large Object support?

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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?