Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([192.204.191.242])
	by postgresql.org (8.11.3/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f8G5uQ747591
	for <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>; Sun, 16 Sep 2001 01:56:27 -0400 (EDT)
	(envelope-from tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f8G5uLK16939;
	Sun, 16 Sep 2001 01:56:21 -0400 (EDT)
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
cc: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Large Objects 
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0109151631080.680-100000@peter.localdomain> 
References: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0109151631080.680-100000@peter.localdomain>
Comments: In-reply-to Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
	message dated "Sat, 15 Sep 2001 16:33:05 +0200"
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 01:56:21 -0400
Message-ID: <16936.1000619781@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Archive-Number: 200109/34
X-Sequence-Number: 966

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> We need to come up with a better reason for
> why the large object interface exists, if only because the above *used* to
> be true.

Other than backwards compatibility, the only usefulness of the LO
interface (IMHO) is that it provides random access to LO contents ---
ie, the ability to read or write small chunks of a large value.
TOAST can't completely replace LOs until we have a similar capability
for large toasted values.

			regards, tom lane