From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Confusing messages about index row size |
Date: | 2021-09-12 06:03:25 |
Message-ID: | CAKFQuwb9HiC4e1nGhwrikHo2B1f3SRbGfuTh+TKUFa0haUcTqg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sunday, September 12, 2021, Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>
wrote:
>
>
> So, what is it? the index row size could be upto 8191 or cannot be
> greater than 2704?
>
The wording doesn’t change between the two: The size cannot be greater the
8191 regardless of the index type being used. This check is first,
probably because it is cheaper, and just normal abstraction layering, but
it doesn’t preclude individual indexes imposing their own constraint, as
evidenced by the lower maximum of 2704 in this specific setup.
It may be non-ideal from a UX perspective to have a moving target in the
error messages, but they are consistent and accurate, and doesn’t seem
worthwhile to expend much effort on usability since the errors should
themselves be rare.
David J.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | wangsh.fnst@fujitsu.com | 2021-09-12 07:33:23 | RE: drop tablespace failed when location contains .. on win32 |
Previous Message | Jaime Casanova | 2021-09-12 05:50:41 | Confusing messages about index row size |