Re: [HACKERS] Priorities for 6.6

From: Vince Vielhaber <vev(at)michvhf(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Priorities for 6.6
Date: 1999-06-04 15:49:06
Message-ID: XFMail.990604114906.vev@michvhf.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On 04-Jun-99 Tom Lane wrote:
> However, I am loathe to put *any* work into improving LOs, since I think
> the right answer is to get rid of the need for the durn things by
> eliminating the size restrictions on regular tuples.

Is this doable? I just looked at the list of datatypes and didn't see
binary as one of them. Imagining a Real Estate database with pictures
of homes (inside and out), etc. or an employee database with mugshots of
the employees, what datatype would you use to store the pictures (short
of just storing a filename of the pic)?

Vince.
--
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev(at)michvhf(dot)com flame-mail: /dev/null
# include <std/disclaimers.h> TEAM-OS2
Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com
Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com
==========================================================================

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Lockhart 1999-06-04 16:01:30 Re: [COMMITTERS] 'pgsql/doc/src/sgml/ref lock.sgml set.sgml'
Previous Message Hub.Org News Admin 1999-06-04 15:35:30