Re: Extending varlena - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Extending varlena
Date
Msg-id 27376.1219237311@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Extending varlena  ("Stephen R. van den Berg" <srb@cuci.nl>)
List pgsql-hackers
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> If you replace the third point by "maybe partition TOAST tables", replace 
>> large object handle by TOAST pointer, and create an API to work on TOAST 
>> pointers, how are the two so much different?  And why should they be?

The reason they should be different is that (IMHO anyway) you don't want
the default behavior of SELECT * FROM ... to include pulling back the
entire contents of the blob.  Indeed, we *can't* have that be the
behavior, unless we want to go back to the proposal that started this
thread of making the entire system safe for multi-gigabyte datums.

It's certainly possible that the underlying implementation could be
just TOAST, but we need some other API at the SQL level.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: A smaller default postgresql.conf
Next
From: Magnus Hagander
Date:
Subject: Re: A smaller default postgresql.conf