| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] COPYable logs |
| Date: | 2007-08-19 16:58:44 |
| Message-ID: | 18840.1187542724@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> If these prove difficult, I'd say 24K would put us in an equivalent
> position (two extra copies of the error message plus change). Even so,
> I'm inclined to say that 8K is very tight.
We really only care about being able to deliver an "out of memory during
error recovery" message within that space. So yes, you can assume the
message text isn't huge and there isn't any add-on context info to worry
about. But there could be localization and/or encoding translation costs.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Webb Sprague | 2007-08-19 17:29:50 | Re: INSERT/SELECT and excessive foreign key checks |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-08-19 16:47:11 | Re: [PATCHES] COPYable logs |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-08-20 01:41:44 | Re: [PATCHES] COPYable logs |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-08-19 16:47:11 | Re: [PATCHES] COPYable logs |