From: | "Thomas G(dot) Lockhart" <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | Goran Thyni <goran(at)bildbasen(dot)se> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andreas(dot)Zeugswetter(at)telecom(dot)at, pgsql-hackers(at)hub(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] text should be a blob field |
Date: | 1998-03-03 16:45:23 |
Message-ID: | 34FC33A3.9E5F371F@alumni.caltech.edu |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Or simply call text-BLOBs "textblob" of something like that.
> What does SQL-92 say about BLOBs anyway?
Nothing afaik. That is why you get different meanings and usages between database
products. I'd like to keep "text" as a useful string type. Conventionally, generic
blobs are just binary objects with not much backend support (e.g. no useful
operators other than perhaps "=").
Imo generic blobs make more sense in a system without the capability to add types;
perhaps a solution for Postgres would look a little different. At the moment, the
frontend/backend protocol is different for large objects and everything else, so
it would be difficult to transparently introduce blobs which behave identically to
types which fit within a normal tuple.
- Tom
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Cristian Gafton | 1998-03-03 17:34:59 | Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL - the Linux of Databases... |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 1998-03-03 16:31:00 | Re: [HACKERS] doc troubles. |