Re: pg_class catalog question...

From: "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, "Qingqing Zhou" <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pg_class catalog question...
Date: 2006-03-31 17:09:34
Message-ID: 36e682920603310909r72df1d80k7a1df972013a6f0f@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 3/31/06, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> This argument falls flat when you consider that the width of a CHAR
> entry is measured in characters, not bytes, and therefore its physical
> size is not fixed even if its logical width is.

Gotta love multibyte :)

--
Jonah H. Harris, Database Internals Architect
EnterpriseDB Corporation
732.331.1324

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alex bahdushka 2006-03-31 17:20:29 Re: PANIC: heap_update_redo: no block
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-03-31 16:50:17 Re: Index vacuum improvements