2013/10/21 Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> > On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 08:10:24PM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > > On 10/20/2013 07:52 PM, Noah Misch wrote: > > >> Anything we do here effectively provides wrappers around the existing > > >> functions tailored toward the needs of libpq. > > To clarify the above statement: the existing lo* SQL functions are > designed to > fit the needs of the libpq APIs that call those SQL functions internally. > The > additions we're discussing are SQL functions designed to fit the needs of > user-written SQL statements. > > > I am for including to core - we have no buildin SQL functions that allows > > access simple and fast access on binary level. Next - these functions > > completes lo functionality. > > > > Other questions - should be these functions propagated to libpq? > > No; I agree that the existing libpq large object API is adequate. >
ok > > > and who will write patch? You or me? > > If you're prepared to change the function names and add the subset-oriented > functions, I would appreciate that. > I'll try to prepare patch in next two days Regards Pavel > > Thanks, > nm > > -- > Noah Misch > EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com >
