| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Save a few bytes in pg_attribute |
| Date: | 2023-03-21 16:43:23 |
| Message-ID: | 20230321164323.mjaso2jffu2cj2dp@awork3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2023-03-21 17:36:48 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 21.03.23 00:51, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > > On 2023-03-20 10:37:36 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > > I agree that attinhcount could be narrowed, but I have some concern
> > > > about attstattarget. IIRC, the limit on attstattarget was once 1000
> > > > and then we raised it to 10000. Is it inconceivable that we might
> > > > want to raise it to 100000 someday?
> >
> > > Hard to believe that'd happen in a minor version - and I don't think there'd
> > > an issue with widening it again in a major version?
> >
> > True. However, I think Tomas' idea of making these columns nullable
> > is even better than narrowing them.
Why not do both?
> The context of my message was to do the proposed change for PG16 to buy back
> a few bytes that are being added by another feature
How much would you need to buy back to "reach parity"?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2023-03-21 17:05:15 | Re: Transparent column encryption |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2023-03-21 16:36:48 | Re: Save a few bytes in pg_attribute |