Re: Large objects.
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Large objects. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | AANLkTi=9RGkFExVkjhMHjzdJWRsg4x8_VEW67E7piKPa@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Large objects. (Dmitriy Igrishin <dmitigr@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 2:25 PM, Dmitriy Igrishin <dmitigr@gmail.com> wrote: > Hey Robert, Tom > > Tom, thank you for explanation! > >> Ouch. Letting people write data to where they can't get it back from >> seems double-plus ungood. >> > Robert, yes, I agree with you. This is exactly what I wanted to say. > I've implemented a stream class in C++ and this circumstance makes > the code not so clean because I need to take into account the behavior > of lo_write() and 2GB limit. On further examination, it appears we're not doing this. The reason lo_read wasn't returning any data in your earlier example is because you called it after seeking to the end of the object. If you seek to the position where the data was written, it works fine. A fairly plausible argument could be made that we shouldn't allow reading or writing past 2^31-1, but it now appears to me that the behavior is at least self-consistent. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: