
>Currently, large objects are stored internally as xinv### and xinx###.
>
>I would like to rename this for 6.4 to be _lobject_### to prevent
>namespace collisions, and make them clearer for administrators.
>
>However, this may cause problems for backward compatability for large
>object users.  As I see there are going to be other new large object
>things in 6.4, it may not be an issue.
>
>Is is OK to rename them internally?

How about giving them their own subdirectory large_object/_lob_###, 
then there would be no naming conflict ?
Since all others call them LOB I would use _lob_### instead.

Andreas


Thu, 6 Aug 1998 10:45:41 +0200
Andreas Zeugswetter <andreas.zeugswetter@telecom.at>
AW: [HACKERS] Large objects names
> 
> >Currently, large objects are stored internally as xinv### and xinx###.
> >
> >I would like to rename this for 6.4 to be _lobject_### to prevent
> >namespace collisions, and make them clearer for administrators.
> >
> >However, this may cause problems for backward compatability for large
> >object users.  As I see there are going to be other new large object
> >things in 6.4, it may not be an issue.
> >
> >Is is OK to rename them internally?
> 
> How about giving them their own subdirectory large_object/_lob_###, 
> then there would be no naming conflict ?
> Since all others call them LOB I would use _lob_### instead.

That would be interesting.

-- 
Bruce Momjian                          |  830 Blythe Avenue
maillist@candle.pha.pa.us              |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  (610) 353-9879(w)
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  (610) 853-3000(h)

Thu, 6 Aug 1998 11:43:02 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: AW: [HACKERS] Large objects names