Re: Support for 8-byte TOAST values, round two

From: Rui Zhao <zhaorui126(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Burd <greg(at)burd(dot)me>, Yugo Nagata <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Support for 8-byte TOAST values, round two
Date: 2026-09-12 17:46:18
Message-ID: CAHWVJhGhQ+Wkin=+-34=a+kh8+Tk+YUrG3ZPYUP5Mwy7KA9-dA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi Michael,

> I still don't buy that adding a re-check of the value in the TOAST
> insert path is worth the cost of this case.

Agreed, and 0003 does not add one; it is two paragraphs of documentation.
The one under pg_resetwal -o can go. The other one, in create_table.sgml,
says that the parameter cannot be set on a partitioned table, that a
partition does not inherit it, and that a partition created without it
gets an oid TOAST table. That has nothing to do with the counter; keep it
or drop it as you see fit.

Regards,
Rui

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrey Borodin 2026-09-12 18:01:21 Re: SSI: ON CONFLICT DO SELECT takes no predicate lock on the returned row
Previous Message Dean Rasheed 2026-09-12 17:40:01 Re: [BUG] ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE SET x = EXCLUDED.<virtual-generated-column> errors or silently writes NULL