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

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Hannu Krosing <hannuk(at)google(dot)com>
Cc: Yugo Nagata <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Support for 8-byte TOAST values, round two
Date: 2026-07-31 02:36:59
Message-ID: amwKSyRcjid3wPai@paquier.xyz
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Jul 30, 2026 at 01:16:36PM +0200, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> Have you compared the index sizes of OID and 8-byte ID ?

Please do not top-post. This breaks the logical flow of the community
thread. Please see the following about bottom-posting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Bottom-posting

> It is possible, that they are of the same size because of alignment, so
> there would not be any difference in size.

I suspect that the size is the same due to 8-byte alignment (not done
a measurement on that with a fixed loading pattern). Just please note
that the OID8 behavior is available on an opt-in as a reloption, with
OID still being the default. So there is no impact by default,
neither is there an impact across upgrades. A relation set with an
OID8 is preserved across pg_upgrade moving forward to newer versions,
of course.
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2026-07-31 02:47:43 Re: COPY TO BLACKHOLE / pg_dump -j -Fb
Previous Message Thomas Munro 2026-07-31 02:18:09 Re: pg_threads.h take II