Re: BUG #16302: too many range table entries - when count partition table(65538 childs)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: digoal(at)126(dot)com, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: BUG #16302: too many range table entries - when count partition table(65538 childs)
Date: 2020-03-16 02:38:30
Message-ID: 28094.1584326310@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 12:03 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> PG Bug reporting form <noreply(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
>>> ERROR: 54000: too many range table entries

>> This hardly seems like a bug. We do not support an infinite number of
>> partitions --- and in the real world, performance would have tanked
>> long before you got to this many partitions.

> Would it make sense to document this hard upper bound on the number of
> relations that can be handled by a query?

Well, if we say "PG can handle up to 64K relations in a query",
I think people would read that as meaning that you actually get
usable performance with up to 64K relations. Which is a long
way away, even if certain specific cases might work acceptably.
The existing docs discourage using more than a few thousand
partitions, IIRC, and that seems like sufficient guidance for now.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message PG Bug reporting form 2020-03-16 06:02:25 BUG #16303: A condtion whether an index-only scan is possible includes a wrong
Previous Message Amit Langote 2020-03-16 02:27:55 Re: BUG #16302: too many range table entries - when count partition table(65538 childs)