Re: PQexec() 8191 bytes limit and text fields - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Mitch Vincent
Subject Re: PQexec() 8191 bytes limit and text fields
Date
Msg-id 006901c10f9b$2f57b830$1251000a@Mitch
Whole thread Raw
In response to PQexec() 8191 bytes limit and text fields  ("Steve Howe" <howe@carcass.dhs.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
    First, are you using the latest PG? I was under the impression that all
the hard-coded limitations on size had been eliminated in the latest
releases. I know for an absolute fact that I can insert multi-megabyte sized
text chunks in PG 7.1.2 as I've done just that before...
   Good luck!

-Mitch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Howe" <howe@carcass.dhs.org>
To: <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 4:51 AM
Subject: [HACKERS] PQexec() 8191 bytes limit and text fields


> Hello all,
>
>
>         Writing my interface application, which use the PQexec library, I
> came across the PQexec() queries 8191 bytes limit.
>         What useful are 4Gb text fields if I have this limit ?
>         I mean, if a user make an update to this field, with a large value
> (let's say, 4Mb), do I have to call PQexec multiple (more then 500) times,
> concatenating the strings each time I call it ??? Can't this be better
> implemented ? This is too slow, and generates much more traffic then I
ever
> wish.
>         This problem also plagues the large objects API, since they're
only
> a wrapper to the built-in large objects API.
>         Does anyone have a better way of doing this ?
>
> Best Regards,
> Steve Howe
> http://www.vitavoom.com
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/search.mpl
>



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Ross J. Reedstrom"
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_depend
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Idea: recycle WAL segments, don't delete/recreate 'em