On Tuesday 18 May 2004 08:56 pm, Noel J. Bergman wrote: > Steve and Vincenzo: > > This means we will revisit the PostgreSQL issues raised by Arjan and Russ, > and try to add the additional configuration elements from Jason Tepoorten.
I did want to follow up to that one, but i haven't found the time to write a decent patch yet. But I've done some testing on this agains PostgreSQL. Main issue with PostgreSQL is the fact that it has completely different and incompatible (at JDBC and database level) large datatypes. Currently james uses bytea, wich is a byte array stored within the table en should be accessed using byte array's in JDBC. The other one is oid, wich is stored outside the table, either in files or in a special large objects table. These should be accessed using Blob's. IIRC the oid type is unlimited in size and bytea will store at most 1GB. I guess that makes both useable. Oid has several disadvantages because it is stored outside the table it escapes the PostgreSQL privilege system meaning that any user on the DB is able to read them. The other, wich is more of a problem for james is the fact that it is required to use transactions to read a oid field. A simple SetAutoCommit would take care of that but it's annoying and might easily be forgotten. If I where to choose I'd stay out of Blobs for PostgreSQL and go for the byte array wich seems to work just fine. > I want to make sure that everyone has a heads up so that we can test the > JDBC support on all of these drivers as soon as Vincenzo commits a change. > I can put to a test build, not yet an RC until we've been able to validate. > Can everyone try to make time to help test, please? > Thursday and Friday happend to be 2 free days for me, so I should be able to do some testing against PostgreSQL if there is a test version in time... Greets, Arjan veenstra --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
