I wrote:
> Maybe. I think where KaiGai-san is trying to go with this is being
> able to turn an ExpandedObject (which could contain very large amounts
> of data) directly into a toast pointer or vice versa. There's nothing
> really preventing a TOAST OID from having more than 1GB of data
> attached, and if you had a side channel like this you could transfer
> the data without ever having to form a larger-than-1GB tuple.
BTW, you could certainly imagine attaching such infrastructure for
direct-to-TOAST-table I/O to ExpandedObjects today, independently
of any ambitions about larger-than-1GB values. I'm not entirely sure
how often it would get exercised, which is the key subtext of what
I wrote before, but it's clearly a possible optimization of what
we do now.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
