| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Save a few bytes in pg_attribute |
| Date: | 2023-03-20 23:44:57 |
| Message-ID: | 20230320234457.s2magjpvmeqg6nqe@awork3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2023-03-20 10:37:36 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I agree that attinhcount could be narrowed, but I have some concern
> about attstattarget. IIRC, the limit on attstattarget was once 1000
> and then we raised it to 10000. Is it inconceivable that we might
> want to raise it to 100000 someday?
Hard to believe that'd happen in a minor version - and I don't think there'd
an issue with widening it again in a major version?
I doubt we'll ever go to 100k without a major redesign of stats storage/access
- the size of the stats datums would make that pretty impractical right now.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2023-03-20 23:51:12 | Re: Save a few bytes in pg_attribute |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2023-03-20 23:34:06 | Re: Add pg_walinspect function with block info columns |