From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PgHacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: varlena beyond 1GB and matrix |
Date: | 2016-12-08 00:16:21 |
Message-ID: | 3837.1481156181@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> Maybe. I think where KaiGai-san is trying to go with this is being
> able to turn an ExpandedObject (which could contain very large amounts
> of data) directly into a toast pointer or vice versa. There's nothing
> really preventing a TOAST OID from having more than 1GB of data
> attached, and if you had a side channel like this you could transfer
> the data without ever having to form a larger-than-1GB tuple.
BTW, you could certainly imagine attaching such infrastructure for
direct-to-TOAST-table I/O to ExpandedObjects today, independently
of any ambitions about larger-than-1GB values. I'm not entirely sure
how often it would get exercised, which is the key subtext of what
I wrote before, but it's clearly a possible optimization of what
we do now.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI | 2016-12-08 00:37:41 | Re: Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication. |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-12-08 00:07:28 | Re: Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication. |