> It's not real clear to me *why* we are keeping an index on the prosrc
> field of pg_proc, but we evidently are, so plpgsql source code can't
> safely exceed 4k per proc as things stand.
> In short, it was only by chance that you were able to put this set of
> procs into 6.4 in the first place :-(
> Can any hackers comment on whether pg_proc_prosrc_index is really
> necessary?? Just dropping it would allow plpgsql sources to approach 8k,
> and I can't think of any scenario where it's needed...
> BTW, Jan has been muttering about compressing plpgsql source, which
> would provide some more breathing room for big procs, but not before 6.6.
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Ross J. Reedstrom||Date: 1999-07-16 16:32:01|
|Subject: [email@example.com: [GENERAL] Weird behavior of 'default user']|
|Previous:||From: Ansley, Michael||Date: 1999-07-16 16:10:38|
pgsql-bugs by date
|Next:||From: Wayne Piekarski||Date: 1999-07-17 03:23:22|
|Subject: Re: Oversize proc sources (was Re: [BUGS] Backend dies creating plpgsql procedures (with reproducible example!))|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 1999-07-16 14:49:19|
|Subject: Oversize proc sources (was Re: [BUGS] Backend dies creating plpgsql procedures (with reproducible example!))|