From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Ansley, Michael" <Michael(dot)Ansley(at)intec(dot)co(dot)za> |
Cc: | "'pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Token length limit |
Date: | 1999-08-13 14:13:43 |
Message-ID: | 4194.934553623@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Ansley, Michael" <Michael(dot)Ansley(at)intec(dot)co(dot)za> writes:
> Now that the query strings are effectively unlimited in length, the point
> that I mentioned in a previous mail about the token length being limited to
> 16kB becomes an issue. One of the reasons for wanting a large query string
> length is to allow people to insert long text strings into a text field.
> However, if I understand things right, the token length will limit the text
> going into the text field to 16kB. Is this right? Should I have a look at
> how to increase the token length arbitrarily?
Yes, and yes. It's not a critical issue as long as we have limited
tuple sizes, but we do need to fix this eventually.
(Actually I think the limit is currently 64k not 16k, because of the
hack that parser/Makefile applies to scan.c, but the point is there
shouldn't be any hardwired limit...)
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ansley, Michael | 1999-08-13 14:21:00 | RE: [HACKERS] Token length limit |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 1999-08-13 14:09:26 | Re: [HACKERS] COPY |