"Clark C. Evans" <cce(at)clarkevans(dot)com> writes:
> What would be most helpful though is if the answer to
> this question stop being an attack on the business
> requirement analysis, database design skills, and/or
> sanity of the requester. It's a limitation of
> PostgreSQL's implementation; a deliberate performance
> trade-off that is infeasible to change.
Just for the record: I don't think its *infeasible* to change it.
What I'm saying is that it would be a bad tradeoff for the vast
majority of users.
I could imagine accepting a patch that provides a compile-time option
to change the limit. The core of it would be something like
+ #ifdef SUPPORT_RIDICULOUSLY_MANY_COLUMNS
+ uint16 t_hoff; /* sizeof header incl. bitmap, padding */
uint8 t_hoff; /* sizeof header incl. bitmap, padding */
plus whatever other fallout ensues elsewhere. But somebody would have
to step up to develop and test such a patch, and keep on testing it to
ensure no bit-rot sets in, because it seems very unlikely that any
mainstream distributions would ever choose to enable the option.
I don't think any of the core developers have any interest in hacking
on this; we have bigger fish to fry. So it'd be a matter of someone
scratching their own itch.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-general by date
|Next:||From: Alban Hertroys||Date: 2010-11-13 12:11:58|
|Subject: Re: Basic Tutorials for 9.0|
|Previous:||From: Elliot Chance||Date: 2010-11-13 03:43:31|
|Subject: The first dedicated PostgreSQL forum|