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

From: Peter T Mount <psqlhack(at)maidast(dot)demon(dot)co(dot)uk>
To: "Vadim B(dot) Mikheev" <vadim(at)sable(dot)krasnoyarsk(dot)su>
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: 1998-03-06 06:56:55
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.3.95.980306065114.8393A-100000@maidast
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, 5 Mar 1998, Vadim B. Mikheev wrote:

> 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 ?

Yes. What I was meaning was if the "somewhere else" is in a blob, then we
would have to keep track of it if the tuple is updated or deleted.

--
Peter T Mount petermount(at)earthling(dot)net or pmount(at)maidast(dot)demon(dot)co(dot)uk
Main Homepage: http://www.demon.co.uk/finder
Work Homepage: http://www.maidstone.gov.uk Work EMail: peter(at)maidstone(dot)gov(dot)uk

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Goran Thyni 1998-03-06 10:26:49 Re: [HACKERS] AUTO_INCREMENT suggestion
Previous Message Peter T Mount 1998-03-06 06:25:06 Re: [HACKERS] Speedups