...
[11:24:56 CDT(-0500)] <EricDalquist> it has very different LOB handling
[11:25:06 CDT(-0500)] <EricDalquist> we got bit hard by that in uPortal :/
[11:25:15 CDT(-0500)] <drewwills> i'm not sure... do you think that platform will have issues with large text?
[11:26:10 CDT(-0500)] <drewwills> i imagine the necessary treatment will be similar to portlet preferences
[11:26:24 CDT(-0500)] <EricDalquist> it isn't large text
[11:26:32 CDT(-0500)] <EricDalquist> it is the transactional requirements of LOBs
[11:26:35 CDT(-0500)] <EricDalquist> with postgres
[11:26:46 CDT(-0500)] <EricDalquist> postgres requires a TX when reading lobs
[11:27:04 CDT(-0500)] <EricDalquist> all other DBs see a big performance hit if you are always doing TXs on reads
[11:27:29 CDT(-0500)] <drewwills> sounds like the discussions that went down w/ portlet preferences
[11:27:36 CDT(-0500)] <EricDalquist> yup
[11:27:46 CDT(-0500)] <EricDalquist> we solved it with a bunch of custom transaction handling code in uportal
[11:27:50 CDT(-0500)] <EricDalquist> but it would be worth testing
[11:27:54 CDT(-0500)] <EricDalquist> before having to port all that over
[11:27:59 CDT(-0500)] <drewwills> yeah
[11:29:51 CDT(-0500)] <drewwills> i expect we'll have to refine this one over time... i'm just glad to begin the plugging of this big hole
[11:29:57 CDT(-0500)] <EricDalquist> yeah
[11:30:13 CDT(-0500)] <EricDalquist> just want to make sure it gets checked before we get stuck and have to figure out a schema change
[11:39:55 CDT(-0500)] <drewwills> a schema change would stink... i hope it doesn't come to that... perhaps we'll have a near-term chance to set it all up for a postgress-using client... in that case, i'm certain it would get hit pretty hard