From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Relpartbound, toasting and pg_class |
Date: | 2017-06-12 21:16:30 |
Message-ID: | 20170612211630.6ycp5q4sdnimruz5@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2017-06-12 17:10:28 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 6/12/17 15:38, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Just noticed that pg_class now has several varlena fields:
> > #ifdef CATALOG_VARLEN /* variable-length fields start here */
> > /* NOTE: These fields are not present in a relcache entry's rd_rel field. */
> > aclitem relacl[1]; /* access permissions */
> > text reloptions[1]; /* access-method-specific options */
> > pg_node_tree relpartbound; /* partition bound node tree */
> > #endif
> >
> > of those relpartbound is fairly new. And pretty much unbounded in
> > size. Aren't we going to run into issues because pg_class doesn't have a
> > toast table? It's quite reasonable to use a multi-field composite type
> > as a partition boundary...
>
> Cases where relacl became too large have been known to exist. I'm not
> sure whether relpartbound can really be that large to change the
> scenario significantly.
Because it's further increasing the size by something unbounded in size,
which'll not uncommonly be large? It makes a fair amount of sense to
partition by multiple columns at once (using the expression syntax).
- Andres
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2017-06-12 21:25:17 | Re: Transactional sequence stuff breaks pg_upgrade |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-06-12 21:13:34 | Re: Transactional sequence stuff breaks pg_upgrade |