Re: The documentation for storage type 'plain' actually allows single byte header

Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> writes:
> On Fri, 2023-09-29 at 18:19 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Where did we end with this? Is a doc patch the solution?

> I don't think this went anywhere, and a doc patch is not the solution.
> Tom has argued convincingly that single-byte headers are an effect of the TOAST
> system, and that STORAGE PLAIN should disable all effects of TOAST.

Well, that was the original idea: you could use STORAGE PLAIN if you
had C code that wasn't yet toast-aware. However, given the lack of
complaints, it seems there's no non-toast-aware code left anywhere.
And that's not too surprising, because the evolutionary pressure to
fix such code would be mighty strong, and a lot of time has passed.

I'm now inclined to think that changing the docs is better than
changing the code; we'd be more likely to create new problems than
fix anything useful.

I wonder though if there's really just one place claiming that
that's how it works. A trawl through the code comments might
be advisable.

regards, tom lane