Re: [HACKERS] Large Objects versus transactional behavior

2011-05-12 Thread YAMAMOTO Takashi
hi, > On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Kevin Grittner > wrote: >> This is related to the "SIREAD lock versus ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock" >> thread, but seemed different enough to merit spinning off a new >> thread. >> >> Our shop hasn't used large objects so far because of the lack of >> security (unt

Re: [HACKERS] Large Objects versus transactional behavior

2011-05-12 Thread Kevin Grittner
YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote: > is there any chance to "just" make large objects obey the normal > semantics in future? I sure hope so, but I have no idea how hard that is. I feel the same about TRUNCATE TABLE now that I recognize the semantic difference between it and DELETE FROM with no WHERE cla

Re: [HACKERS] Large Objects versus transactional behavior

2011-05-06 Thread Robert Haas
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote: > This is related to the "SIREAD lock versus ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock" > thread, but seemed different enough to merit spinning off a new > thread. > > Our shop hasn't used large objects so far because of the lack of > security (until 9.1), so I n

[HACKERS] Large Objects versus transactional behavior

2011-04-30 Thread Kevin Grittner
This is related to the "SIREAD lock versus ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock" thread, but seemed different enough to merit spinning off a new thread. Our shop hasn't used large objects so far because of the lack of security (until 9.1), so I never noticed the rather unusual transactional semantics of large o