From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com> |
Cc: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Large expressions in indexes can't be stored (non-TOASTable) |
Date: | 2025-04-09 04:20:29 |
Message-ID: | Z_X1jfsMrBBNUx4n@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 08, 2025 at 11:21:31PM -0300, Euler Taveira wrote:
> The logical replication creates origin names as pg_SUBOID_RELID or pg_SUBOID.
> It means the maximum origin name is 24. This limited origin name also applies
> to pglogical that limits the name to 54 IIRC. I think that covers the majority
> of the logical replication setups. There might be a small number of custom
> logical replication systems that possibly use long names for replication
> origin. I've never seen a replication origin name longer than NAMEDATALEN.
pg_replication_origin_create() can be used with text as input for the
origin name, still your argument sounds sensible here as I would
suspect that most setups of logical replication are these.
> If you consider that the maximum number of replication origin is limited to 2
> bytes (65k distinct names), it is reasonable to restrict the replication
> origin names to 512 due to the high number of combinations. We generally
> expects that a catalog string uses "name" as type if it is an identifier; it
> could be the case for roname if author decided to be strict.
I would be more cautious than a limit on NAMEDATALEN. The restriction
suggested by Nathan at 512 bytes should be plenty enough.
> This additional TOAST table has no or rare use. +1 for removing it. It is one
> less file, one less table and one less index; in short, one less source of data
> corruption. ;)
I guess that's the consensus, then. No objections to the removal here.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Japin Li | 2025-04-09 04:25:24 | Re: Remove unnecessary static type qualifiers |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2025-04-09 03:03:06 | Re: Fix 035_standby_logical_decoding.pl race conditions |