Re: Large Object support for a DB FS

> I then proceeded with implementing my own block-oriented data table
> using bytea for storage.  This approach has been more flexible but has a
> couple of draw-backs:
>
>   1. To partially update a bytea field, I have to load it first,
>      resulting in the overhead of an extra query.
>
>   2. There is more overhead from the extra queries required to manage
>      the block table.  The result is a large CPU hit for simple I/O.
I'm sure there's quite a few people who'd be very delighted
if you chose to implement range-update/append support for bytea !

Karsten
--
GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD  4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346