Received: from mail.xnet.com (quake.xnet.com [198.147.221.35])
	by hub.org (8.9.2/8.9.1) with ESMTP id CAA55122
	for <pgsql-interfaces@postgreSQL.org>;
	Mon, 1 Feb 1999 02:17:19 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from selkovjr@mcs.anl.gov)
Received: from mcs.anl.gov (selkovjr@selkovjr.xnet.com [205.243.141.67]) by
	mail.xnet.com (8.8.6/XNet-3.0R) with ESMTP id BAA11039;
	Mon, 1 Feb 1999 01:17:57 -0600 (CST)
Message-Id: <199902010717.BAA11039@mail.xnet.com>
To: Adam Haberlach <haberlaa@ricochet.net>, pgsql-interfaces@postgreSQL.org
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] Large objects, why not use the filesystem? 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 31 Jan 1999 12:51:03 PST."
	<19990131125103.D22196@ricochet.net>
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 01:20:07 -0500
From: "Gene Selkov Jr." <selkovjr@mcs.anl.gov>

> > 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