Re: literal limits in 8.3

From: Sam Mason <sam(at)samason(dot)me(dot)uk>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: literal limits in 8.3
Date: 2008-11-24 14:19:03
Message-ID: 20081124141903.GZ2459@frubble.xen.chris-lamb.co.uk
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 09:06:14AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Sam Mason <sam(at)samason(dot)me(dot)uk> writes:
> > However, I've just tried today and am getting some strange results. The
> > strange results are that above a certain length PG says that it's put a
> > string in OK but there's nothing there when I look back afterward.
>
> I get "out of memory" complaints from psql when I try your test case.

Hum, strange.

It's a normal 32bit Intel Debian system, nothing much special done
to increase the kernel/user split or anything like that as far as I
remember on this box. If I try with larger sizes it falls over with
"out of memory", but up until around 755MB (760MB fails) it gives back
"INSERT 0 1" which I've always read as inserting a row. A select on the
table gives this inserted row containing a zero length string.

Sam

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Scara Maccai 2008-11-24 14:41:10 [Fwd: [Fwd: Re: return MAX and when it happened]]
Previous Message Rafael Martinez 2008-11-24 14:13:05 Re: hola mundo

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dave Page 2008-11-24 14:21:52 Re: blatantly a bug in the documentation
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-11-24 14:14:43 Re: blatantly a bug in the documentation