Peter T Mount wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Aug 1998, David Hartwig 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.
>
> I claimed the parts of the TODO list that deal with these issues a few
> weeks ago.
I will move on to something else unless their is something I can assist you
with.
> Since then, I've tried several solutions (the one in contrib
> was an attempt that uses triggers. It works but has holes - like DROP
> TABLE doesnt fire a trigger).
>
Actually, the trigger is still worth having in the bag-o-tricks. It can keep
numerous additions and removals of tuples with LOs from filling up the disk
before the vacuum gets executed.
> The method I think is best is the vacuum procedure. Now, I have here the
> basic outline for it, and how it interacts with the existing system using
> oid's, but currently I can't test it as postgresql is still broken (for
> me).
