Forgot to reply all on this one, many thanks to Steve Adrian and Bill for their answers. On Jan 29, 2015, at 12:32 PM, Roger Pack <rogerdpack2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 1/29/15, Steve Atkins <steve@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Jan 29, 2015, at 9:53 AM, Roger Pack <rogerdpack2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> On 1/29/15, Roger Pack <rogerdpack2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> Hello. I see on this page a mention of basically a 4B row limit for >>>> tables that have BLOB's >>> >>> Oops I meant for BYTEA or TEXT columns, but it's possible the >>> reasoning is the same... >> >> It only applies to large objects, not bytea or text. >> >>>> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/BinaryFilesInDB >> >> Some of that looks incorrect or out of date. (e.g. large objects can be a >> lot >> bigger than 2GB in 9.3+). >> >> >>>> >>>> Is this fact mentioned in the documentation anywhere? Is there an >>>> official source for this? (If not, maybe consider this a feature >>>> request to mention it in the documentation on BLOB). >>>> Cheers and thanks. >>>> -roger >> >> I'm not sure whether it's mentioned explicitly, but large objects are >> referenced by an OID, which is a 32 bit value (and a global resource). > > Thanks for the info, precisely what I was looking for. > As a following up, could you elaborate on what you mean by "global > resource"? I believe OID's are generated from a global counter. Does > this mean the maximum number of large objects in the database is 4B? Well, OIDs are generated from a global counter, but there's nothing to stop that wrapping around. OIDs are used in a lot of places in the system - to identify tables, and functions and loaded modules and suchlike, and duplicates are prevented by unique indexes or similar. But that means that if the OID counter were to wrap around and return an OID that was already in use in the same context then the attempt to use it would fail. For instance, you might try to create a table, and it would fail because the "next" OID was already used to specify another table. Wrapping the OID counter around will cause all sorts of things to break. Use of OIDs by the user (as opposed to by postgresql itself for internal bookkeeping) has been deprecated for years. That's one reason, but not the only reason, that I don't believe anyone should every use the postgresql large object infrastructure. For small (megabytes rather than gigabytes) chunks of data that might be processed in the database or might not, bytea or text types are the right thing. For anything larger, or anything that's not actually processed within the database (e.g. images or PDFs handled by a webapp) then leaving the file on the filesystem and just storing metadata in the database is usually the right thing. > If you actually had that many BLOB's (and the counter wrapped) I > assume that lo_create would start failing [i.e. it has some kind of > uniqueness constraint on the oid]? Or something like that? lo_create() would fail, but so would the rest of the database. Nothing would work. A billion large objects is too many. (Exactly a billion too many, in fact). Cheers, Steve -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
