Re: [QUESTIONS] Re: [HACKERS] text should be a blob field

From: "Vadim B(dot) Mikheev" <vadim(at)sable(dot)krasnoyarsk(dot)su>
To: Peter T Mount <psqlhack(at)maidast(dot)demon(dot)co(dot)uk>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Zeugswetter Andreas SARZ <Andreas(dot)Zeugswetter(at)telecom(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers(at)hub(dot)org, PostgreSQL-questions <questions(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [QUESTIONS] Re: [HACKERS] text should be a blob field
Date: 1998-03-05 09:08:08
Message-ID: 34FE6B78.5DE8B8AC@sable.krasnoyarsk.su
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter T Mount wrote:
>
> On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > > make text a blob datatype (maybe storing <= 8k row with tuple, >=8k in blob
> > > tablespace)
> >
>
> There was some talk about this about a month ago.
>
> Although we now have blob support in the JDBC driver, there is one
> outstanding issue with them, that I was waiting for 6.3 to be released
> before starting on it (and almost certainly starting a discussion here
> about it).
>
> Allowing text to use blobs for values larger than the current block size
> would hit the same problem.

When I told about multi-representation feature I ment that applications
will not be affected by how text field is stored - in tuple or somewhere
else. Is this Ok for you ?

Vadim

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pedro J. Lobo 1998-03-05 09:11:17 Re: [HACKERS] Re: [QUESTIONS] Problems with running v6.3 on DIGITAL UNIX
Previous Message Michael Meskes 1998-03-05 08:52:56 Re: [HACKERS] 6.3 question...