On 5/27/15 5:02 AM, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> 2015-05-27 0:01 GMT+02:00 Martín Marqués <martin@2ndquadrant.com
> <mailto:martin@2ndquadrant.com>>:
>
> El 25/05/15 a las 06:13, alex2010 escribió:
> > Maybe it makes sense to add ability to store large objects in the same table space as the table.
> > Or an opportunity - to specify table space for a large object.
> > Do you have anything in todolists about it?
>
> This is something which has popped up on me more than once when giving
> talks about storing files in PostgreSQL (last PgDay Argentina there was
> quite a debate about it, particularly when bringing up the bytea <-> LO
> comparison). The concerns the people exposed had different end goals.
>
> One of the main concerns was the fact that all LO live in a common
> catalog table (pg_largeobjects).
>
> If the LO were stored per-database, with a some alike schema as
> pg_largeobjects, then they could be placed on any tablespace available,
> and even get dumped on a normal DB dump, which makes administration much
> simpler.
>
>
> I don't get it. They are already stored database per database. Each
> database has its own pg_largeobjects catalog where all Large Objects for
> this database are stored.
There's also nothing preventing someone from creating a 'next
generation' LO PGXN extension that could be brought into core if enough
people show interest. That's probably the best route to get changes to
the existing LO infrastructure made.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
