|From:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|To:||Ari Halberstadt <ari(at)shore(dot)net>|
|Subject:||Re: [INTERFACES] JDBC: detecting lost backend; 8192 byte limit in queries|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
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
|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|