| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Stephen R(dot) van den Berg" <srb(at)cuci(dot)nl> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Extending varlena |
| Date: | 2008-08-20 13:01:51 |
| Message-ID: | 27376.1219237311@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> 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?
The reason they should be different is that (IMHO anyway) you don't want
the default behavior of SELECT * FROM ... to include pulling back the
entire contents of the blob. Indeed, we *can't* have that be the
behavior, unless we want to go back to the proposal that started this
thread of making the entire system safe for multi-gigabyte datums.
It's certainly possible that the underlying implementation could be
just TOAST, but we need some other API at the SQL level.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2008-08-20 13:02:49 | Re: A smaller default postgresql.conf |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2008-08-20 12:51:06 | Re: A smaller default postgresql.conf |