From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Ari Halberstadt <ari(at)shore(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-interfaces(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [INTERFACES] JDBC: detecting lost backend; 8192 byte limit in queries |
Date: | 1999-02-18 16:15:58 |
Message-ID: | 2473.919354558@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-interfaces |
Ari Halberstadt <ari(at)shore(dot)net> writes:
> - how do I store more than 8192 bytes?
Eliminating the restriction on the textual length of a query is on my
to-do list. It's probably not going to happen in time for 6.5, but
maybe for 6.6 (say, this summer).
There is a *separate* restriction on the stored size of a tuple,
namely that it not exceed 1 disk block --- which just happens to be
8K as well by default, but it's a different restriction on a different
kind of data.
If your objective is to be able to insert a text field longer than 8K
then both of these restrictions will get in your way.
There has been some talk of allowing tuples to span multiple disk
blocks, but I get the impression that it's still a ways from happening.
In the meantime it is possible to compile Postgres with a larger
block size; if 16K or so per tuple would solve your problem then that
is a feasible workaround. (Would someone who's done that note for the
record exactly what to change?)
The query length limit appears as a constant in enough different places
that patching it up to a larger value would probably be pretty tedious
:-(. I haven't tried it.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dave Page | 1999-02-18 17:02:51 | Trigger Information |
Previous Message | Michael Contzen | 1999-02-18 13:56:46 | What is SQLForignKeys in ODBC-Driver |