From: Adam Haberlach <haberlaa@ricochet.net>
To: Matthew Hagerty <matthew@wolfepub.com>
To: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] Large objects, why not use the filesystem?
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 12:51:03 -0800
Message-ID: <19990131125103.D22196@ricochet.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4.1.19990131151130.00a91180@firebat.wolfepub.com>
References: <4.1.19990131151130.00a91180@firebat.wolfepub.com>
On Sun, Jan 31, 1999 at 03:26:15PM -0500, Matthew Hagerty wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> I always see posts of people trying to get their large binary and text
> objects into and out of the database somehow. I was wondering if there is
> some reason why just storing a filename in the table would be a bad thing?
> This way you can let the file system worry about storing the data (since
> that is what the file system is good at.) I understand that you probably
> could not access the data via ODBC, but if you are writing your frontend in
> C or Perl, etc. then you would simply use the filename stored in the table
> to access the data.
Because the database is in a different room then the client.
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org
Cc: haberlaa@ricochet.net, matthew@wolfepub.com
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] Large objects, why not use the filesystem?
In-Reply-To: <19990131125103.D22196@ricochet.net>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox