| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Marcos Pegoraro <marcos(at)f10(dot)com(dot)br>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Useless toast |
| Date: | 2024-07-23 19:45:35 |
| Message-ID: | 1080784.1721763935@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> writes:
> On 23.07.24 20:35, Marcos Pegoraro wrote:
>> I think none of these tables should have a toast, right ?
> The mechanism that determines whether a toast table is needed only
> considers the data type, not the "typmod" (arguments of the data type).
> So this is perhaps suboptimal, but this logic just doesn't exist.
Not true, see type_maximum_size() in format_type.c. But I'm
uninterested in making that drill down into domains, or at least
that would not be my first concern if we were trying to improve it.
(The first concern would be to let extension types in on the fun.)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2024-07-23 19:55:28 | Re: pg_upgrade and logical replication |
| Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2024-07-23 19:41:00 | Re: [18] Policy on IMMUTABLE functions and Unicode updates |