From: Gene Selkov Jr. <selkovjr@mcs.anl.gov>
To: Adam Haberlach <haberlaa@ricochet.net>
To: pgsql-interfaces@postgreSQL.org
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] Large objects, why not use the filesystem?
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 01:20:07 -0500
Message-ID: <199902010717.BAA11039@mail.xnet.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <19990131125103.D22196@ricochet.net>
> > 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.
>
There are lots of easier ways to pass files from that room (http, etc.)
--Gene
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: selkovjr@mcs.anl.gov, haberlaa@ricochet.net
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] Large objects, why not use the filesystem?
In-Reply-To: <199902010717.BAA11039@mail.xnet.com>
* 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