Re: proposal: lob conversion functionality

From: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: proposal: lob conversion functionality
Date: 2013-10-26 19:06:45
Message-ID: 20131026190645.GA541896@tornado.leadboat.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 03:35:05PM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> 2013/10/24 Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>
> > On 22.10.2013 13:55, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> >> 2013/10/21 Noah Misch<noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>
> >>> If you're prepared to change the function names and add the
> >>> subset-oriented
> >>> functions, I would appreciate that.
> >>>
> >>> here is patch
> >>
> >
> > lobj.sgml still refer to the old names.

> fixed documentation

Thanks. I made these noteworthy changes:

1. Fix lo_get(oid) on a LO larger than INT_MAX bytes: raise an error rather
than performing a modulo operation on the size.

2. Remove the undocumented ability to pass a negative length to request all
bytes up to the end of the LO. substr() also rejects negative lengths. Note
that one can get the same effect by passing any length >MaxAllocSize.

3. Documentation reshuffling. I placed all the documentation for these
functions in the large objects chapter, and I emphasized the new functions
over the prospect of calling the older functions (whose primary role is to
support client interfaces) from SQL.

If this still looks reasonable, I will commit it.

--
Noah Misch
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

Attachment Content-Type Size
load_lo_v5.patch text/plain 14.4 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Rowley 2013-10-26 20:16:31 Re: Changes to stringinfo.c
Previous Message Andres Freund 2013-10-26 17:07:09 Re: RULE regression test fragility?