Tom Lane writes:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> > Tom Lane writes:
> >> What for/why bother? A toastable bytea column would do just as well.
>
> > There's still a 1 or 2 GB limit for data stored in that.
>
> 1 Gb, I believe ... but LOs are not a lot better; they'd max out at 2 or
> at most 4 Gb, depending on whether the code always treats offsets as
> unsigned.
That can be fixed by adding a 64-bit aware equivalent of the existing lo_*
functions. I suppose it'd be a lot harder to make regular data types
handle long values.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net http://funkturm.homeip.net/~peter