Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Re: 7.2 items

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Thomas Swan <tswan(at)olemiss(dot)edu>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Re: 7.2 items
Date: 2001-06-27 16:29:51
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.30.0106271825550.729-100000@peter.localdomain (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane writes:

> > Maybe we could make the BLOB type a wrapper around the lo_* functions?
> > The BLOB value would only store the oid.
> What for/why bother?  A toastable bytea column would do just as well.

There's still a 1 or 2 GB limit for data stored in that.

Peter Eisentraut   peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-06-27 16:33:19
Subject: Re: Re: Encrypting pg_shadow passwords
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-06-27 16:27:49
Subject: pg_largeobject is a security hole

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group