Hannu Krosing wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> >
> > I've heard lots of people want to increase BLCKSZ, but you're the first
> > one who ever wanted to reduce it. You sure you want to do this? It's
> > going to make the maximum row length uncomfortably short.
>
> And it may even not work, as some system tables (that are also affected
> by this)
> may need the full 8k. AFAIK it has never been tested with BLCKSZ < 8k
Except for two different sorted (but correct) results while selecting inherited tables in "misc", regression
testspassed with 2K.
Why shouldn't it work? All the catalogs that require really big data have toast tables now.
Anyway, the 8K default BLCKSZ already restricts index tuples to 2700 bytes. So I wouldn't recommend it at all.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
