Re: BTMaxItemSize seems to be subtly incorrect

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: BTMaxItemSize seems to be subtly incorrect
Date: 2022-06-09 13:40:29
Message-ID: CA+TgmoZg_V=Z-LAp-Ch6zBf1e6FNcyMTZg+yoN82BEepz4iAoQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 7:44 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> FWIW I don't see much difference between borrowing special space and
> adding something to BTPageOpaqueData. If anything I'd prefer the
> latter.

I think this discussion will take us too far afield from the topic of
this thread, so I'll just say here that wouldn't solve the problem I
was trying to tackle.

> Here's why: BTMaxItemSizeNoHeapTid() is actually what BTMaxItemSize()
> looked like prior to Postgres 12. So the limit on internal pages never
> changed, even in Postgres 12. There was no separate leaf page limit
> prior to 12. Only the rules on the leaf level ever really changed.

Yeah, I noticed that, too.

Are you going to code up a patch?

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2022-06-09 13:41:08 Re: broken regress tests on fedora 36
Previous Message Amit Langote 2022-06-09 13:34:29 Re: Replica Identity check of partition table on subscriber