Re: Speed of locating tables?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Barry Lind <barry(at)xythos(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Speed of locating tables?
Date: 2000-05-26 21:45:27
Message-ID: 3708.959377527@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Barry Lind <barry(at)xythos(dot)com> writes:
> This sounds doable. It would probably also remove the problem I have
> that unlinks of large objects can't be rolled back.

Right, lo_unlink would become something like
"DELETE FROM pg_largeobjects WHERE loid = NNNN"
which is perfectly rollbackable. This would also solve the problem a
number of people have had with accessing thousands of LOs in a single
transaction. (The lock manager tends to run out of shared memory when
asked to keep track of that many table locks :-(.)

This might also make dump/restore of large objects more manageable,
since you'd just be talking about dumping & restoring the contents of
this one table instead of having to look around to see what LOs exist.

A disadvantage I didn't think of before is that it'd take extra work to
implement access protection of LOs --- we do not have any existing way
of protecting individual rows in a table...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2000-05-26 21:54:44 Re: Update Performance from 6.5.0 to 6.5.3 to 7.0
Previous Message Travis Bauer 2000-05-26 21:23:22 setting permissions on a new table in a trigger