> On Sat, 11 Dec 1999, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > In fact, you could get fancy and allow an update of a non-pg_long using
> > column to not change pg_long at all. Just keep the same value in the
> > column. If the transaction fails or succeeds, the pg_long is the same
> > for that tuple. Of course, because an update is a delete and then an
> > insert, that may be hard to do. For very long fields, it would be a win
> > for UPDATE. You certainly couldn't do that with chained tuples.
>
> While this is great and all, what will happen when long tuples finally get
> done? Will you remove this, or keep it, or just make LONG and TEXT
> equivalent? I fear that elaborate structures will be put in place here
> that might perhaps only be of use for one release cycle.
I think the idea is that Jan's idea is better than chaining tuples.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026