| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Frank Joerdens <frank(at)joerdens(dot)de>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Is there a drawback when changing NAMEDATALEN to 64? |
| Date: | 2002-01-24 23:49:30 |
| Message-ID: | 200201242349.g0ONnUZ05345@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Frank Joerdens <frank(at)joerdens(dot)de> writes:
> > Is there a drawback when changing NAMEDATALEN to 64? Put the other way
> > 'round, what's the thinking behind having a default of 32?
>
> That value was chosen years ago, when machines were slower and disks
> smaller than today.
>
> There's been a proposal on the table for awhile to increase the standard
> NAMEDATALEN value to 64, but we haven't got round to it.
>
> BTW, there is at least a small potential for breaking applications with
> this change: NAMEDATALEN is part of the exported libpq ABI, because it
> affects the representation of PGnotify structures. When and if we do
> change the standard setting, I'm inclined to reverse the order of the
> fields in PGnotify, so that accesses to be_pid don't depend on
> NAMEDATALEN.
TODO updated:
* Increase identifier length (NAMEDATALEN) if small performance hit;
change struct pgNotify to use pid first, breaks notify API
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-01-24 23:51:03 | Re: Simple 'type' question |
| Previous Message | Tim Barnard | 2002-01-24 23:11:36 | Simple 'type' question |