| From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: predefined role(s) for VACUUM and ANALYZE |
| Date: | 2022-09-28 20:12:22 |
| Message-ID: | 20220928201222.GA1400058@nathanxps13 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 03:09:46PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 14:50 Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
>> I've been testing aclmask() with long aclitem arrays (2,000 entries is
>> close to the limit for pg_class entries), and I haven't found any
>> significant impact from bumping AclMode to 64 bits.
>
> The max is the same regardless of the size..? Considering the size is
> capped since pg_class doesn’t (and isn’t likely to..) have a toast table,
> that seems unlikely, so I’m asking for clarification on that. We may be
> able to get consensus that the difference isn’t material since no one is
> likely to have such long lists, but we should at least be aware.
While pg_class doesn't have a TOAST table, that column is marked as
"extended," so I believe it is still compressed, and the maximum aclitem
array length for pg_class.relacl would depend on how well the array
compresses.
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2022-09-28 20:20:37 | Re: longfin and tamandua aren't too happy but I'm not sure why |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-09-28 20:07:13 | Re: longfin and tamandua aren't too happy but I'm not sure why |