> "Leonel Nunez" <lnunez@enelserver.com> wrote:
>>
>> > If the database had built-in functions to manipulate images (make a
>> > thumbnail, add text ont it.., make a montage of two pictures) and I
>> could
>> > write something like
>> > select thumbnail(image_field, 100, 100) from images_table
>> > that would be a good reason to go the db route versus the filesystem
>> > route.
>
> <snip>
>
>> With Python and the python imaging library you can do this :
>>
>> image is a bytea field
>>
>> curs = conn.cursor ()
>> curs.execute( "select image from images where name = %s" ,(thename, ))
>> row = curs.fetchone()
>> if row:
>> im = Image.open (StringIO.StringIO(row[0]))
>> im.thumbnail (160,120 )
>> imagetmp = StringIO.StringIO()
>> im.save ( imagetmp , "JPEG")
>> print ("Content-type: image/jpeg\n\n")
>> print ( imagetmp.getvalue())
>
> I think part of the point, which you missed, is the convenience of having
> the thumbnailing as part of the SQL language by making it a stored
> procedure.
>
> I did a presentation for WPLUG not too long ago where I created C
> functions in Postgres compiled against the GSOAP library that allowed
> you to make simple SOAP calls in SQL within PostgreSQL. Neat stuff.
>
> The problem with creating those kinds of functions is the CPU overhead.
> We'll be generating the thumbnails and storing them in a "thumbnail"
> field in the record, so we don't have to regenerate the thumbnail each
> time it's needed.
>
> BTW: our reason for keeping the thumbnails in fields is so they can be
> replicated with Slony along with the rest of the database.
>
> --
> Bill Moran
>
> We meddle. People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to
> do,
> what to think. Don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their
> heads and we haven't the right.
>
> River Tam
>
>
you are 100% right
Leonel