"large" attachments (was Re: [rt-devel] rt notes)

Jesse jesse at fsck.com
Mon Sep 18 17:38:48 EDT 2000

On Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 05:30:47PM -0400, Alex Pilosov wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2000, J.D. Falk wrote:
> > > *nod* One thing I've been vaguely pondering is the idea of storing "large"
> > > attachments on disk, rather than in the database.  This isn't something Im
> > > thrilled with, but it may be necessary to deal with many databases' broken
> > > large-object handling.
> I would really strongly suggest you don't do that. Better to do it right,
> dealing with all sillinesses of databases if necessary than do it wrong
> way.

*nod* I've gotten people fighting hard on both sides of this. I don't _want_ to store things on disk. it gets very very icky. But someone or other had convinced me that it was "better" to do that, than to drop those 1/2 gig attachments
into a database that could choke.  The right thing to do is probably to figure out some nice db-neutral way to chunk things and have per-db cutoffs.

> There aren't that many of them, its just postgres being annoying but you
> can work around using lztext or in 7.1, it's completely fixed.

> -alex

jesse reed vincent --- root at eruditorum.org --- jesse at fsck.com 
pgp keyprint: 50 41 9C 03 D0 BC BC C8 2C B9 77 26 6F E1 EB 91
They'll take my private key when they pry it from my cold dead fingers!

More information about the Rt-devel mailing list