Re: tuptoaster.c must *not* use SnapshotAny
От | Hiroshi Inoue |
---|---|
Тема | Re: tuptoaster.c must *not* use SnapshotAny |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3C47B68B.192A86CF@tpf.co.jp обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: tuptoaster.c must *not* use SnapshotAny (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: tuptoaster.c must *not* use SnapshotAny
Re: tuptoaster.c must *not* use SnapshotAny |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > Agreed. I think that was the reason we kept TOAST and large objects, > > > because large objects were designed for random read-write. If we can > > > get large objects to auto-delete, probably with pg_depend, we can then > > > use them seamlessly with BLOB I/O routines. > > > > Oops I seem to have missed the discussion about excluding > > bytea from the candidate from BLOB. Yes now we seem to have > > a good reason to exclude existent type from the candidate > > of BLOB. > > Well, we had the discussion when Jan was adding TOAST, and Jan was > saying we still need large objects for I/O purposes and for very large > items. Though I've often seen the reference to bytea BLOB I remember no clear negation. Don't we have to negate it clearly from the first ? regards, Hiroshi Inoue
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: