From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Modifying TOAST thresholds |
Date: | 2007-03-28 17:38:49 |
Message-ID: | 87lkhhl13q.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> I also think that we ought to add TOAST_MAX_CHUNK_SIZE to the set of
> compiled-in parameters that are recorded in pg_control and checked for
> compatibility at startup (like BLCKSZ) --- this will prevent anyone from
> shooting themselves in the foot while experimenting.
Is there any reason to experiment with this? I would have thought we would
divorce TOAST_MAX_CHUNK_SIZE from TOAST_THRESHOLD and hard code it as the same
expression that's there now. Ie, the largest size that can fit in a page.
That doesn't mean it shouldn't go in pg_control of course but it would just be
a function of BLCKSIZE and the architecture alignment and not dependent on any
user configurable value.
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Florian G. Pflug | 2007-03-28 17:52:09 | Re: CREATE INDEX and HOT - revised design |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-03-28 17:35:54 | Re: Arrays of Complex Types |