Re: [HACKERS] A further thought on rule string size

At 09:28 AM 2/28/00 +0100, Jan Wieck wrote:
>> > > If you could keep the labels just for EXPLAIN, go for it.
>> >
>> > Not right now, put it onto TODO for after 7.0.
>>
>> But we just required initdb for lztext. If we need another initdb
>> later, maybe we should do it?
>
> LZTEXT was a fairly limited change, tested out before and
> just reapplied. This time you ask for mucking with the family
> of node-print and -read functions. Even if it's a limited
> area of code affected, I don't feel comfortable doing it now.

And lztext compression of the rule strings is such a big win that
I suspect folks upgrading from 6.5 to 7.0 won't have to worry about
having their views blow up in their face. So the "mini-crisis" is
solved, folks will be able to upgrade smoothly, and in practice will
be able to build views on tables with many more columns.

Removing the additional verbosity from the rule strings is also a
good idea, but doesn't feel like a critical-path thing to me. So
I think Jan's right, it can wait.

- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest
Rare Bird Alert Service and other goodies at
http://donb.photo.net.