From: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> |
---|---|
To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: hstore improvements? |
Date: | 2009-03-20 20:20:50 |
Message-ID: | 87eiws2bfh.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>>>>> "Josh" == Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
>>> As an hstore user, I'd be fine with simply limiting it to 64K (or,
>>> heck, 8K) and throwing an error. I'd also be fine with limiting
>>> keys to 255 bytes, although we'd have to warn people.
>> Yeah, 255 might well be more of a problem than the other limit. We
>> could move to something like 10/22 or 12/20 split, which would give
>> us 1KB/4MB or 4KB/1MB limits.
Josh> Anything you like. What I'm saying is that I think I use
Josh> hstore more heavily than most people, and that if the limits
Josh> were as low as 255b/8K it wouldn't hurt me any.
Josh> I suppose 1K/4MB would allow OO-types to use hstore as an
Josh> object store, so you'll make them happy with a new foot gun.
Josh> Why not?
I decided to obviate the entire question and remove the limits
altogether (while still keeping the overhead the same, i.e. 8 bytes
per entry).
--
Andrew.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2009-03-20 20:36:43 | Re: Open 8.4 item list |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2009-03-20 20:08:45 | Re: Open 8.4 item list |