Re: [HACKERS] Re: Bugs in Postgres - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Re: Bugs in Postgres
Date
Msg-id 1071.951924974@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Bugs in Postgres  (Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>)
List pgsql-hackers
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
> The plpgsql function problem sounds like an issue with an index on a
> system table, and may have been fixed for the upcoming release, but I
> don't recall anything specifically.

Yes, that sure sounds like an index-tuple-size overflow in the index
that 6.5.* and prior versions kept on pg_proc's prosrc field.  7.0
doesn't keep such an index, so it's proof against this particular limit.

IIRC, the maximum safe length of a procedure definition in <=6.5 is
2700 bytes.  Sometimes you will get away with more, sometimes not,
depending on what winds up on the same index page with your procedure...
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Kardos, Dr. Andreas"
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Where's the SQL3 spec?
Next
From: Karel Zak - Zakkr
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] NO-CREATE-TABLE and NO-LOCK-TABLE