Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > > Agreed. I think that was the reason we kept TOAST and large objects,
> > > because large objects were designed for random read-write. If we can
> > > get large objects to auto-delete, probably with pg_depend, we can then
> > > use them seamlessly with BLOB I/O routines.
> >
> > Oops I seem to have missed the discussion about excluding
> > bytea from the candidate from BLOB. Yes now we seem to have
> > a good reason to exclude existent type from the candidate
> > of BLOB.
>
> Well, we had the discussion when Jan was adding TOAST, and Jan was
> saying we still need large objects for I/O purposes and for very large
> items.
Though I've often seen the reference to bytea BLOB
I remember no clear negation. Don't we have to negate
it clearly from the first ?
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
