Обсуждение: [HACKERS] Large objects
The ToDo list includes the following as an enhancement in version 6.1:
Large objects
overwriting blocks has problems
there are other problems, too.
Fix large object mapping scheme
not to stuff everything as files in a single directory
Does this mean that large objects work now? If so, is the libpq++
testlo.cc example supposed to work?
thx,
sean
________________________________________________________________________
Sean Lyndersay Time is natures way of making sure
lynders@hcs.harvard.edu things don't happen all at once.
________________________________________________________________________
[finger for all other info] http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~lynders
------------------------------
> > > The ToDo list includes the following as an enhancement in version 6.1: > Large objects > overwriting blocks has problems > there are other problems, too. > Fix large object mapping scheme > not to stuff everything as files in a single directory > > Does this mean that large objects work now? If so, is the libpq++ > testlo.cc example supposed to work? As the maintainer of the todo list, I can say, "I don't know." The TODO list is only a list of REPORTED problems. - -- Bruce Momjian maillist@candle.pha.pa.us ------------------------------
On Mon, 9 Jun 1997, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > The ToDo list includes the following as an enhancement in version 6.1:
> > Large objects
> > overwriting blocks has problems
> > there are other problems, too.
> > Fix large object mapping scheme
> > not to stuff everything as files in a single directory
> >
> > Does this mean that large objects work now? If so, is the libpq++
> > testlo.cc example supposed to work?
>
> As the maintainer of the todo list, I can say, "I don't know."
>
> The TODO list is only a list of REPORTED problems.
>
Okay, how about this:
- -- copy start --
CHANGES IN THE 6.1 RELEASE
Bug Fixes
---------
[snip]
large object fixes(Sven)
- -- copy end --
guess we'll wait until sven reads and comments. :)
meanwhile, i'll see if i can find the problem. For those interested, the
test program failes when trying to read the large object out of the
database with the following message:
"OTICE:LockRelease: locktable lookup failed, no lock"
sean
________________________________________________________________________
Sean Lyndersay Time is natures way of making sure
lynders@hcs.harvard.edu things don't happen all at once.
________________________________________________________________________
[finger for all other info] http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~lynders
------------------------------
>>>>> "Sean" == Sean Lyndersay <lynders@hcs.harvard.edu> writes:
Sean> On Mon, 9 Jun 1997, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> >
>> > The ToDo list includes the following as an enhancement in
>> > version 6.1:
>> > Large objects
>> > overwriting blocks has problems there are other
>> > problems, too. Fix large object mapping scheme not to
>> > stuff everything as files in a single directory
>> >
>> > Does this mean that large objects work now? If so, is the
>> > libpq++ testlo.cc example supposed to work?
>>
>> As the maintainer of the todo list, I can say, "I don't know."
>>
>> The TODO list is only a list of REPORTED problems.
>>
Sean> Okay, how about this:
Sean> -- copy start --
Sean> CHANGES IN THE 6.1 RELEASE
Sean> Bug Fixes ---------
Sean> [snip] large object fixes(Sven)
Sean> -- copy end --
Sean> guess we'll wait until sven reads and comments. :)
I've been pounding on large objects for the last few days. It's
pretty stable, much more so than earlier versions. However, I've only
tested the lo_import, lo_export SQL functions, and the lo_read,
lo_write, and lo_create functions in libpq. They seem to work well
now.
Sean> meanwhile, i'll see if i can find the problem. For those
Sean> interested, the test program failes when trying to read the
Sean> large object out of the database with the following message:
Sean> "OTICE:LockRelease: locktable lookup failed, no lock"
I've seen this. I think this means either you have nested begin/end
transactions or forgot a begin/end transaction block, but have not
checked into it yet.
Ray
------------------------------
Shall we install Raymonds large object patches in 6.1? Looks like he has done some serious testing, so it may be a good idea. > > >>>>> "Sean" == Sean Lyndersay <lynders@hcs.harvard.edu> writes: > > > Sean> On Mon, 9 Jun 1997, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> > > >> > The ToDo list includes the following as an enhancement in > >> > version 6.1: > >> > Large objects > >> > overwriting blocks has problems there are other > >> > problems, too. Fix large object mapping scheme not to > >> > stuff everything as files in a single directory > >> > > >> > Does this mean that large objects work now? If so, is the > >> > libpq++ testlo.cc example supposed to work? > >> > >> As the maintainer of the todo list, I can say, "I don't know." > >> > >> The TODO list is only a list of REPORTED problems. > >> > > Sean> Okay, how about this: > Sean> -- copy start -- > Sean> CHANGES IN THE 6.1 RELEASE > > Sean> Bug Fixes --------- > Sean> [snip] large object fixes(Sven) > > Sean> -- copy end -- > > Sean> guess we'll wait until sven reads and comments. :) > > I've been pounding on large objects for the last few days. It's > pretty stable, much more so than earlier versions. However, I've only > tested the lo_import, lo_export SQL functions, and the lo_read, > lo_write, and lo_create functions in libpq. They seem to work well > now. > > Sean> meanwhile, i'll see if i can find the problem. For those > Sean> interested, the test program failes when trying to read the > Sean> large object out of the database with the following message: > Sean> "OTICE:LockRelease: locktable lookup failed, no lock" > > I've seen this. I think this means either you have nested begin/end > transactions or forgot a begin/end transaction block, but have not > checked into it yet. > > Ray > > > > - -- Bruce Momjian maillist@candle.pha.pa.us ------------------------------ End of hackers-digest V1 #381 *****************************
> > > > I've been pounding on large objects for the last few days. It's > > pretty stable, much more so than earlier versions. However, I've only > > tested the lo_import, lo_export SQL functions, and the lo_read, > > lo_write, and lo_create functions in libpq. They seem to work well > > now. > > > > Sean> meanwhile, i'll see if i can find the problem. For those > > Sean> interested, the test program failes when trying to read the > > Sean> large object out of the database with the following message: > > Sean> "OTICE:LockRelease: locktable lookup failed, no lock" > > > > I've seen this. I think this means either you have nested begin/end > > transactions or forgot a begin/end transaction block, but have not > > checked into it yet. > > Can't be that. I'm using the testlo.cc program in the libpq++/examples directory. It has a begin and an end command. For reference, I'm using the snapshot day before yesterday. My preference would be to have these large object patches asap. It seems that they are broken right now. Either that or libpq++ is broken. If Raymond is having no problems with libpq, then I can debug libpq++ and see what's happening. I'd rather not repeat anything he's done. thanks sean ________________________________________________________________________ Sean Lyndersay Time is natures way of making sure lynders@hcs.harvard.edu things don't happen all at once. ________________________________________________________________________ [finger for all other info] http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~lynders ------------------------------
>>>>> "Sean" == Sean Lyndersay <lynders@hcs.harvard.edu> writes:
Sean> Can't be that. I'm using the testlo.cc program in the
Sean> libpq++/examples directory. It has a begin and an end
Sean> command. For reference, I'm using the snapshot day before
Sean> yesterday.
Sean> My preference would be to have these large object patches
Sean> asap. It seems that they are broken right now. Either that
Sean> or libpq++ is broken. If Raymond is having no problems with
Sean> libpq, then I can debug libpq++ and see what's
Sean> happening. I'd rather not repeat anything he's done.
Ok. Just a thought. I have not tried libpq++, and all of my testing
has been either with psql or my homegrown STk to PostgreSQL
interface (pgstk).
If you have the version from two or three days ago, you are working
with the same version as I am (was) using. You are only missing the
patch I posted on Sunday which fixes a bug in the backend for
lo_import and lo_export. The sample code in test/examples/testlo.c
works just fine for me (but needed to include <fcntl.h>) so I suspect
either a simple bug in either testlo.cc or libpq++.
Ray
------------------------------