Re: Large expressions in indexes can't be stored (non-TOASTable)

On Tue, Apr 8, 2025, at 5:25 PM, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 08, 2025 at 04:44:02PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 4, 2025 at 7:58 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, Apr 04, 2025 at 05:16:43PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >> > Can we dodge adding this push call if we restrict the length of the
> >> > origin name to some reasonable limit like 256 or 512 and avoid the
> >> > need of toast altogether?
> >>
> >> We did consider just removing pg_replication_origin's TOAST table earlier
> >> [0], but we decided against it at that time. Maybe it's worth
> >> reconsidering...
> >
> > I don't see any good reason in that email for not removing the TOAST
> > table for pg_replication_origin. I would prefer to remove it rather
> > than add protection related to its access.
>
> The only reason I can think of is that folks might have existing
> replication origins with extremely long names that would cause upgrades to
> fail. While I think it would be probably be okay to remove the TOAST table
> and restrict origin names to 512 bytes (like we did for password hashes in
> commit 8275325), folks routinely complain about NAMEDATALEN, so I think we
> should be cautious here.

The logical replication creates origin names as pg_SUBOID_RELID or pg_SUBOID.
It means the maximum origin name is 24. This limited origin name also applies
to pglogical that limits the name to 54 IIRC. I think that covers the majority
of the logical replication setups. There might be a small number of custom
logical replication systems that possibly use long names for replication
origin. I've never seen a replication origin name longer than NAMEDATALEN.

If you consider that the maximum number of replication origin is limited to 2
bytes (65k distinct names), it is reasonable to restrict the replication
origin names to 512 due to the high number of combinations. We generally
expects that a catalog string uses "name" as type if it is an identifier; it
could be the case for roname if author decided to be strict.

This additional TOAST table has no or rare use. +1 for removing it. It is one
less file, one less table and one less index; in short, one less source of data
corruption. ;)

--
Euler Taveira
EDB https://www.enterprisedb.com/