Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

Thread: WG: [QUESTIONS] Re: [HACKERS] text should be a blob field

WG: [QUESTIONS] Re: [HACKERS] text should be a blob field

From
Zeugswetter Andreas SARZ
Date:
> >> Allowing text to use blobs for values larger than the current block
> size
> >> would hit the same problem.
> > When I told about multi-representation feature I ment that applications
> > will not be affected by how text field is stored - in tuple or somewhere
>
> > else. Is this Ok for you ?
>
> This is also what I would have in mind. But I guess a change to the fe-be
> protocol would still be necessary, since the client now allocates
> a fixed amount of memory to receive one tuple, wasn't it ?
>
> Andreas
>
>

Re: WG: [QUESTIONS] Re: [HACKERS] text should be a blob field

From
"Vadim B. Mikheev"
Date:
Zeugswetter Andreas SARZ wrote:
>
> > >> Allowing text to use blobs for values larger than the current block
> > size
> > >> would hit the same problem.
> > > When I told about multi-representation feature I ment that applications
> > > will not be affected by how text field is stored - in tuple or somewhere
> >
> > > else. Is this Ok for you ?
> >
> > This is also what I would have in mind. But I guess a change to the fe-be
> > protocol would still be necessary, since the client now allocates
> > a fixed amount of memory to receive one tuple, wasn't it ?
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I don't know, but imho it's not too hard to implement.

Vadim

Re: WG: [QUESTIONS] Re: [HACKERS] text should be a blob field

From
Peter T Mount
Date:
On Fri, 6 Mar 1998, Vadim B. Mikheev wrote:

> Zeugswetter Andreas SARZ wrote:
> >
> > > >> Allowing text to use blobs for values larger than the current block
> > > size
> > > >> would hit the same problem.
> > > > When I told about multi-representation feature I ment that applications
> > > > will not be affected by how text field is stored - in tuple or somewhere
> > >
> > > > else. Is this Ok for you ?
> > >
> > > This is also what I would have in mind. But I guess a change to the fe-be
> > > protocol would still be necessary, since the client now allocates
> > > a fixed amount of memory to receive one tuple, wasn't it ?
>       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I don't know, but imho it's not too hard to implement.
>
> Vadim

One thing, I don't allocate a fixed amount of memory for JDBC when
receiving tuples.

--
Peter T Mount  petermount@earthling.net or pmount@maidast.demon.co.uk
Main Homepage: http://www.demon.co.uk/finder
Work Homepage: http://www.maidstone.gov.uk Work EMail: peter@maidstone.gov.uk