| From: | Mikhail Terekhov <terekhov(at)emc(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Tuple length limit |
| Date: | 1999-07-04 21:05:31 |
| Message-ID: | 377FCC9B.40043452@emc.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
As a matter of fact, VACUUM works just fine in my case.
It is VACUUM ANALYSE which doesn't.
Regards,
Mikhail
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> >> Can someone tell me what the maximum tuple length is?
>
> I had always thought that the limit was supposed to be BLCKSZ less
> overhead.
>
> > Here is what I found with the new code. Seems it works.
> > test=> vacuum;
> > VACUUM
>
> Wasn't the complaint that started this thread something about "peculiar
> behavior" of VACUUM with big tuples? Might be wise to check VACUUM more
> closely.
>
> regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 1999-07-04 22:22:51 | Re: [HACKERS] Tuple length limit |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 1999-07-04 14:22:45 | Re: Tuple too big |