Re: [PATCH] [v8.5] Security checks on largeobjects - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [PATCH] [v8.5] Security checks on largeobjects
Date
Msg-id 17891.1246301879@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH] [v8.5] Security checks on largeobjects  (Bernd Helmle <mailings@oopsware.de>)
Responses Re: [PATCH] [v8.5] Security checks on largeobjects  (KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Bernd Helmle <mailings@oopsware.de> writes:
> It might be interesting to dig into your proposal deeper in conjunction 
> with TOAST (you've already mentioned this TODO). Having serial access with 
> a nice interface into TOAST would be eliminating the need for 
> pg_largeobject completely (i'm not a big fan of this one-big-system-table 
> approach the old LO interface currently is).

Yeah, it would be more useful probably to fix that than to add
decoration to the LO facility.  Making LO more usable is just going to
encourage people to bump into its other limitations (32-bit OIDs,
32-bit object size, finite maximum size of pg_largeobject, lack of
dead-object cleanup, etc etc).
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Hunsberger
Date:
Subject: Re: Query progress indication - an implementation
Next
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] user mapping extension to pg_ident.conf