On Friday 20 June 2003 09:46 am, Peter Reitsma wrote: > This has been the only incompatibility I encountered so far. I am using MMBase 1.6.3 > and the JDBC driver 7.3.3.
Ok the other problem is about blobs postgress 7.1 or 7.2 made is possible to use OID's for blobs (really storing the data on disk) the jdbc driver at some point mapped blobs to oid's but with the new jdbc driver it maps blobs to the BYTEA type the bytea type can be used for small blobs to once the blob is a few MB's it's impossible to store them in the database because it requires to much memory. (the original byte[] + and escaped version (in a string buffer) + the insert/update sql command containing an other escaped version. if you have luck and you don't run out of memory it will be the postgress server that will tilt. I did not find any documentation on the reason why the postgress gui's moved from storing blob's on disk to storing blobs back in the database. But the bottom line is that with blobs + postgress there still are some problems > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > > Van: Eduard Witteveen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Verzonden: vrijdag 20 juni 2003 9:28 > > Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Onderwerp: Re: MMBase vs. Postgresql 7.3 > > > > > > Kees Jongenburger wrote: > > >>>If MMBase is supposed to work fine on 7.3.2. than this > > might be a bug > > >>>that should be solved by someone in > > >>>org.mmbase.module.database.support.PostgreSQL72 > > > postgress masters backward incompatibility very well and > > with the added value > > > of the jdbc driver that handles blobs in different way's > > for every version it > > > very hard to support the database. This is not a suprise to me. the > > > "function/stored procedure" here was created because with > > postgress we use > > > table inheritance but postgress does't handle > > > foreign-keys wel nor do the constraints on inherited tables > > very well > > > (if in mmbase_object we define number to be unique that > > does not prevent us > > > from creating other entries with the same number) > > > > > > We need to find a good maintainer for the postgres storage > > layer and for now > > > it looks like every postgress version will need it's own > > storage layer. > > Well, if this is the only point on were it misbehaviours, im > > prepared to > > create an Postgres73.java. > > -but- then the lookup.xml should point to the proper classes, and not > > the storage classes (all lookup_postgresql.xml info points to > > postgresql.xml --> org.mmbase.storage.database.PostgreSqlStorage > > Why has this been changed and by whom? (also: > > lookup_postgresql.xml is > > not an valid xml!) > > > > > > > -- Kees Jongenburger Mediapark C101 Hilversum +31 (0)35 6772910
