Simon Riggs wrote: > On Mon, 2008-08-18 at 16:22 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> What would need to happen for the next jump up from where varlena is >>> now, to 8 bytes? >> Dealing with upwards-of-4GB blobs as single Datums isn't remotely sane, >> and won't become so in the near (or even medium) future. So I don't >> see the point of doing all the work that would be involved in making >> this go. >> >> What would make more sense is to redesign the large-object stuff to be >> somewhat modern and featureful, and provide stream-access APIs (think >> lo_read, lo_seek, etc) that allow offsets wider than 32 bits. The main >> things I think we'd need to consider besides just the access API are >> >> - permissions features (more than "none" anyway) >> - better management of orphaned objects (obsoleting vacuumlo) >> - support > 16TB of large objects (maybe partition pg_largeobject?) >> - dump and restore probably need improvement to be practical for such >> large data volumes > > Sounds like a good list. > > Probably also using a separate Sequence to allocate numbers rather than > using up all the Oids on LOs would be a good plan.
The ability to partition the large object store would not suck either... For backup/recovery purposes mainly. //Magnus -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
