Re: [HACKERS] Priorities for 6.6

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: [HACKERS] Priorities for 6.6
Дата
Msg-id 25979.928597126@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] Priorities for 6.6  (Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
>>>> eliminating the size restrictions on regular tuples.
>> Is this doable?

> Presumably we would have to work out a "chunking" client/server
> protocol to allow sending very large tuples.

I don't really see a need to change the protocol.  It's true that
a single tuple containing a couple dozen megabytes (per someone's
recent example) would stress the system unpleasantly, but that would
be true in a *lot* of ways.  Perhaps we should plan on keeping the
LO feature to allow for really huge objects.

As far as I've seen, 99% of users are not interested in storing objects
that are so large that handling them as single tuples would pose serious
performance problems.  It's just that a hard limit at 8K (or any other
particular small number) is annoying.
        regards, tom lane


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: The Hermit Hacker
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL History(Parody)
Следующее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Priorities for 6.6