| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | "T(dot)Lingk" <std7107(at)et(dot)FH-Osnabrueck(dot)DE>, Postgres Hackers List <hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Re: Bugs in Postgres |
| Date: | 2000-03-01 15:36:14 |
| Message-ID: | 1071.951924974@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> writes:
> The plpgsql function problem sounds like an issue with an index on a
> system table, and may have been fixed for the upcoming release, but I
> don't recall anything specifically.
Yes, that sure sounds like an index-tuple-size overflow in the index
that 6.5.* and prior versions kept on pg_proc's prosrc field. 7.0
doesn't keep such an index, so it's proof against this particular limit.
IIRC, the maximum safe length of a procedure definition in <=6.5 is
2700 bytes. Sometimes you will get away with more, sometimes not,
depending on what winds up on the same index page with your procedure...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Karel Zak - Zakkr | 2000-03-01 15:44:49 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] NO-CREATE-TABLE and NO-LOCK-TABLE |
| Previous Message | Kardos, Dr. Andreas | 2000-03-01 15:35:22 | Re: [HACKERS] Where's the SQL3 spec? |