Re: [HACKERS] Arbitrary tuple size

From: Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Vadim Mikheev <vadim(at)krs(dot)ru>
Cc: t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Arbitrary tuple size
Date: 1999-07-09 16:29:57
Message-ID: 199907091629.MAA00499@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> > Ah, but we have segemented tables now. It will auto-split at 1 gig.
>
> Well, now consider update of 2Gb row!
> I worry not due to non-overwriting but about writing
> 2Gb log record to WAL - we'll not be able to do it, sure.
>
> Isn't it why Informix restrict tuple len to 32k only?
> And the same is what Oracle does.
> Both of them have ability to use > 1 page for single row,
> but they have this restriction anyway.
>
> I don't like _arbitrary_ tuple size.
> I vote for some limit. 32K or 64K, at max.

Yes, but having it all in one table prevents fopen() call for every
access, inode use for every large object, and allows vacuum to clean up
multiple versions. Just an idea. I realized your point.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 1999-07-09 16:32:33 Re: [HACKERS] Arbitrary tuple size
Previous Message Ross J. Reedstrom 1999-07-09 16:16:33 Re: CVS broken