| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Remove toast_max_chunk_size from control file |
| Date: | 2026-09-07 01:43:33 |
| Message-ID: | 150388.1788745413@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> Requoting my previous message that you did not include:
>> There may be an argument about somebody enforcing a new
>> TOAST_OID_MAX_CHUNK_SIZE or EXTERN_TUPLES_PER_PAGE manually, of
>> course, but while we claim that tweaks are possible in heaptoast.h,
> I've never seen anybody actually do that. So yes, I agree that if
> somebody has the idea to change this value manually, the control file
> value makes sense to keep. It's just that I doubt that anybody is
> actually doing that. :)
Perhaps not, but the point of these disk-layout-compatibility fields
in pg_control is to keep people from shooting themselves in the foot.
I don't think it's that unlikely that someone would decide that four
TOAST tuples per page isn't ideal, especially if they were running
with non-default BLCKSZ.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Sabino Mullane | 2026-09-07 02:15:52 | Re: POC: Carefully exposing information without authentication |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2026-09-07 01:34:50 | Re: Remove toast_max_chunk_size from control file |