From: | jwieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck) |
---|---|
To: | darrenk(at)insightdist(dot)com (Darren King) |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Rule plan size for views? |
Date: | 1998-03-02 08:02:05 |
Message-ID: | m0y9QAo-000BFRC@orion.SAPserv.Hamburg.dsh.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
> >
> > What is the rule size for views?
> >
> > This seems to have changed in this beta; I have a view that worked in a
> > previous beta but fails to create.
> > "ERROR: DefineQueryRewrite: rule plan string too big."
> >
> > I have about 33 column headings with a join of 5 tables.
> >
> > I have the latest cvsup tree as of a few minutes ago.
> > Linux 2.0.30
> > pgcc compiler
>
> The rule plan is stored as a tuple, hence for this release that limit
> is a little under 8k.
>
> For 6.4, you will be able to use a bigger block size, therefore have
> bigger tuples and this should then work again.
>
> Sounds like the plan internally grew (possible w/subselect stuff?!?) and
> has gone over that 8k limit.
I think it must be due to the cleanups in the node-print and
read funcs. They now output/read ALL fields in the nodes.
>
> I know it's little consolation, but as soon as I can get the variable
> block size working (actually only breaks in the create_triggers regression
> test when sorting to disk), I could post it as a patch for 6.3 as well as
> put it into the 6.4 tree.
>
> darrenk
>
>
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#======================================== jwieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck) #
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Martin | 1998-03-02 10:29:16 | Last minute reminders (hope they're not too late...) |
Previous Message | Vadim B. Mikheev | 1998-03-02 07:55:47 | Re: [PATCHES] Changes to sequence.c |