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

Re: NOTICE: word is too long INSERT 0 3014

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: PgSQL General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: NOTICE: word is too long INSERT 0 3014
Date: 2006-10-26 17:32:55
Message-ID: 4540F147.30701@commandprompt.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-generalpgsql-hackers
Any thoughts on the below?

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I am running into this limitation ALOT with Tsearch2. What are my
> options to get around it. Do I have to compile PostgreSQL with a
> different block size?
> 
> If yes, what are the downsides to doing so (outside of not being able to
> do straight upgrades)?
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Joshua D. Drake
> 


-- 

      === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive  PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
             http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Richard TroyDate: 2006-10-26 17:35:21
Subject: Re: [DOCS] Replication documentation addition
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-10-26 17:21:53
Subject: Re: Nasty btree deletion bug

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Erik JonesDate: 2006-10-26 17:46:37
Subject: Re: more than 32 parameters to a function?
Previous:From: John Sidney-WoollettDate: 2006-10-26 17:16:26
Subject: Re: grouping excluding some text results

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