| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Save a few bytes in pg_attribute |
| Date: | 2023-03-20 23:51:12 |
| Message-ID: | 1110938.1679356272@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2023-03-20 10:37:36 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I agree that attinhcount could be narrowed, but I have some concern
>> about attstattarget. IIRC, the limit on attstattarget was once 1000
>> and then we raised it to 10000. Is it inconceivable that we might
>> want to raise it to 100000 someday?
> Hard to believe that'd happen in a minor version - and I don't think there'd
> an issue with widening it again in a major version?
True. However, I think Tomas' idea of making these columns nullable
is even better than narrowing them.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2023-03-20 23:51:19 | Re: Add pg_walinspect function with block info columns |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2023-03-20 23:44:57 | Re: Save a few bytes in pg_attribute |