Received: from sss.sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [206.210.65.6])
	by hub.org (8.9.2/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA96840
	for <pgsql-interfaces@postgreSQL.org>;
	Mon, 29 Mar 1999 10:33:10 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us)
Received: from sss.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.sss.pgh.pa.us (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA04546;
	Mon, 29 Mar 1999 10:31:29 -0500 (EST)
To: Adam Haberlach <haberlaa@ricochet.net>
cc: PostgreSQL Interfaces <pgsql-interfaces@postgreSQL.org>
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] Re: I am facing a difficult problem.. 
In-reply-to: Your message of Sun, 28 Mar 1999 22:39:11 -0800
	<19990328223910.A4338@ricochet.net>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 10:31:29 -0500
Message-ID: <4544.922721489@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

Adam Haberlach <haberlaa@ricochet.net> writes:
> 	I would like to know if there is a simple solution to this as well,
> or if it will be addressed in the future.

It'll probably get fixed someday, but the solution is not trivial;
don't hold your breath.  I'd guess that it might happen two or three
releases from now, say six months to a year away.  (This has been
discussed many times before, so check the pgsql-hackers list archives
if you want details about the technical issues.)

In the meantime, your options for large text fields are (1) split them
into multiple database records, or (2) store them in "large objects".
Both are pretty ugly :-(

			regards, tom lane