>
>
> Peter T Mount wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 5 Aug 1998, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > > > Peter,
> > > >
> > > > I have just finished up some other stuff in the backend, and I was
> > > > wondering what to do next. My personal list include a cleanup of the lo
> > > > type. Specifically:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Assign a fixed OID to the LO type so that attributes of this type
> > > > can easily be identified.
> > > >
> > > > 2. Write a VACUUM LO procedure.
> > > >
> > > > 3. Extend/verify the existing internal lo functions to work with the
> > > > new type.
> > > >
> > > > I know that more can/should be done in this area, but I only have so much
> > > > time. I am aware the you have done some work on this in the contrib area.
> > > > Were you planning on handling any (or all) of these issues as part of the
> > > > 6.4 base release? I will gladly move on to something else.
> > > >
> > >
> > > We should also make a large object type, rather than using inv_ to
> > > identify it. It is on the TODO list, and I can implement it whenever
> > > you want.
> >
> > agreed - although that would imply a different method of storing them. One
> > of the problems I have with VACUUM LO is that using the existing oid
> > method (for compatibility) would not work with the new type.
> >
My change will allow large objects themselves to be identified inside
the backend without have to see if their name is inv_. Currently, we
flag indexes and normal relations, and view/rules. Large objects
themselves will have their own type.
--
Bruce Momjian | 830 Blythe Avenue
maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
+ If your life is a hard drive, | (610) 353-9879(w)
+ Christ can be your backup. | (610) 853-3000(h)
