Re: Target lists can have at most 1664 entries?

On Wed, Jul 02, 2008 at 09:22:50AM +0200, Bjørn T Johansen wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 03:04:04 -0400
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > =?UTF-8?Q?Bj=C3=B8rn?= T Johansen <btj(at)havleik(dot)no> writes:
> > > What does this mean and how can it be fixed?
> >
> > Reduce the number of columns in your SELECTs?
> >
> > This whiffs to me of excruciatingly bad schema design. How could
> > you possibly need upwards of a thousand columns in a query result?
> > IMHO reasonable column counts are O(10), not O(bignum).
>
> Well, I do agree but it is not my design and a "fix" in PostgreSQL
> would be quicker than fixing the design....

That's where you're badly mistaken. Your application is completely
broken, and trying to adjust everybody else's Postgres to accommodate
*your* broken application is both selfish and short-sighted. It's
selfish because you're asking others to do work they don't need to do
just so you can avoid doing work you need to do, and it's
short-sighted because your application is guaranteed to be broken in
lots of other ways if it's broken this way.

Fix the application, and if you can't, find another job where they're
not being idiots. There are plenty of Postgres-related jobs out
there.

Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate