| From: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: New "blob" re-introduced? |
| Date: | 2023-02-24 07:38:44 |
| Message-ID: | 6284C231-0F06-4373-9F6D-1BD7630CE2F9@yesql.se |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On 24 Feb 2023, at 08:31, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Shouldn't we use "large object" instead of "blob" in the message?
Nice catch, it should be "large object" as per the linked discussion. There
are also a few more like:
- if (cfclose(ctx->LOsTocFH) != 0)
- pg_fatal("could not close LOs TOC file: %m");
+ if (EndCompressFileHandle(ctx->LOsTocFH) != 0)
+ pg_fatal("could not close blobs TOC file: %m");
I'll go ahead and fix them, thanks for the report!
--
Daniel Gustafsson
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2023-02-24 07:40:23 | Re: New "blob" re-introduced? |
| Previous Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2023-02-24 07:31:27 | New "blob" re-introduced? |