Shouldn't the JDBC driver fix up things like that though?
I've just changed my delete code, which was quite straight forward. My
update code was more interesting. If the blob was updated then the
lob_oid in my_table was changed and the new data put in the
pg_largeobject table, but the old blob data was left there, orphaned.
It's lucky I found out about this now and the beginning of development.
Thanks
Heather.
-----Original Message-----
From: barry [mailto:barry@xythos.com]
Sent: Thursday, 9 August 2001 13:10
To: Heather Murray
Cc: barry; pgsql-jdbc
Subject: Re: deleting large objects from jdbc
Heather,
Your understanding is correct. You need to delete the large object
when
you no longer reference it in any other rows. The SQL statements below
should work for that purpose.
thanks,
--Barry
heatherm@famoice.com wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've been browsing the newsgroup archives and came across the
following:
>
>
>>>>>>Can you see a scenario where a programmer would forget to
>>>>>>
> delete the
>
>>>>>>data from pg_largeobject and the database becoming very large
>>>>>>
> filled
>
>>>>>>with orphaned large objects?
>>>>>>
>
> Does this mean that to delete my large object I need to delete the
row
> in my table, and also the row or rows in pg_largeobject. Currently I
am
> only deleting the row in my table. I have just been looking at the
> pg_largeobject table, it seems to have more rows than I would expect
in
> it. Is the solution to pass these two commands to jdbc?
> delete from my_table where lob_oid = 1234
> delete from pg_largeobject where loid = 1234
>
> Thanks in advance
> Heather.
>
> ---------------------------(end of
broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to
majordomo@postgresql.org
>
>