Hi.
> wrote:
> (It would be a rare case, but) A large object might be referenced
> by two or more rows because LO interface is split into two steps;
> allocating oid and storing data for it. The oid could be stored in
> two or more places and auto deletion would break such usecases.
Indeed. We h
higepon wrote:
> As a user of database, I think contrib/lo is not the best way.
> Because it's not a part of core PostgreSQL, users may forget to use them.
> Or it is a little messy to use.
> So I think we need to implement *Auto* delete functionality in PostgreSQL
> core.
(It would be a rare
Hi
> I assume you mean $subject and not what you wrote here.
Yes. Sorry it's my mistake.
>> I examined contrib/lo which offers this functionality.
>
> Yes. I wonder why the TODO item is there at all, when contrib/lo
> already solves it in a perfectly reasonable way.
As a user of database, I th
higepon writes:
> I found a TODO item "pg_dump Add dumping of comments on index columns"
> for large objects.
> and want to write a patch for it.
I assume you mean $subject and not what you wrote here.
> I examined contrib/lo which offers this functionality.
Yes. I wonder why the TODO item is
