Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Repair cosmetic damage (done by pg_indent?)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: "Decibel!" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, "pgsql-patches" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Repair cosmetic damage (done by pg_indent?)
Date: 2007-08-04 19:55:57
Message-ID: 23894.1186257357@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches
Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> The scenario I was describing was having, for example, 20 fields each
> of which are char(100) and store 'x' (which are padded with 99
> spaces). So the row is 2k but the fields are highly compressible, but
> shorter than the 256 byte minimum.

To be blunt, the solution to problems like that is sending the DBA to a
re-education camp.  I don't think we should invest huge amounts of
effort on something that's trivially fixed by using the correct datatype
instead of the wrong datatype.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Gregory StarkDate: 2007-08-04 20:04:33
Subject: Re: Repair cosmetic damage (done by pg_indent?)
Previous:From: Gregory StarkDate: 2007-08-04 19:19:24
Subject: Re: Repair cosmetic damage (done by pg_indent?)

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group