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 18:54:54
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.30.0106272051470.729-100000@peter.localdomain (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane writes:

> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> > Tom Lane writes:
> >> 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.
> 1 Gb, I believe ... but LOs are not a lot better; they'd max out at 2 or
> at most 4 Gb, depending on whether the code always treats offsets as
> unsigned.

That can be fixed by adding a 64-bit aware equivalent of the existing lo_*
functions.  I suppose it'd be a lot harder to make regular data types
handle long values.

Peter Eisentraut   peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Hannu KrosingDate: 2001-06-27 19:47:19
Subject: Re: functions returning records
Previous:From: Hannu KrosingDate: 2001-06-27 18:33:35
Subject: Re: Re: 7.2 items

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