| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Relpartbound, toasting and pg_class |
| Date: | 2017-06-12 21:43:33 |
| Message-ID: | 11481.1497303813@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2017-06-12 17:10:28 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Cases where relacl became too large have been known to exist. I'm not
>> sure whether relpartbound can really be that large to change the
>> scenario significantly.
> Because it's further increasing the size by something unbounded in size,
> which'll not uncommonly be large? It makes a fair amount of sense to
> partition by multiple columns at once (using the expression syntax).
How about gathering some actual evidence on the point --- ie, how big
a partition expression do you need to make it fall over?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2017-06-12 21:47:18 | Re: ICU support on Windows |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-06-12 21:35:37 | Re: Transactional sequence stuff breaks pg_upgrade |