Received: from server1.wallnet.com (cweimann@server1.wallnet.com [208.225.162.8]) by hub.org (8.8.8/8.7.5) with ESMTP id NAA15350 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 1998 13:57:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from cweimann@localhost) by server1.wallnet.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) id NAA22196; Mon, 17 Aug 1998 13:57:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <19980817135702.00280@wallnet.com> Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 13:57:02 -0400 From: "Christopher S. Weimann" To: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org, peter@taer.maidstone.gov.uk Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] lo_tell References: <19980816230603.16159@wallnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.88 In-Reply-To: ; from Peter T Mount on Mon, Aug 17, 1998 at 10:40:11AM +0100 On Mon, Aug 17, 1998 at 10:40:11AM +0100, Peter T Mount wrote: > On Sun, 16 Aug 1998, Christopher S. Weimann wrote: > > > > Anyway in the course of this I discoverd that lo_tell returns an > > int rather than a long. Is there a limitation to the size of a > > large object or just a limitation in lo_tell? > > There shouldn't be a limit, except that the lo is stored in as a > table/index pair - and they are not tested much past 2Gb (not many of us > have larger than 2Gb spare to test it). > Oops! I just checked and an int and a long are both 4 bytes so this turns out to have been stupid question. I know that ftell returns a long and figured that lo_tell should be the same. -- ------------------------------------------------------------ Christopher Weimann SysAdmin Wall Internet LLC. Email: cweimann@wallnet.com PO Box 255 Web: http://www.wallnet.com/~cweimann Manasquan NJ, 08736 732-223-1777 ------------------------------------------------------------