Hi,
On 2023-03-21 17:36:48 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 21.03.23 00:51, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> > > On 2023-03-20 10:37:36 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > > I agree that attinhcount could be narrowed, but I have some concern
> > > > about attstattarget. IIRC, the limit on attstattarget was once 1000
> > > > and then we raised it to 10000. Is it inconceivable that we might
> > > > want to raise it to 100000 someday?
> >
> > > Hard to believe that'd happen in a minor version - and I don't think there'd
> > > an issue with widening it again in a major version?
> >
> > True. However, I think Tomas' idea of making these columns nullable
> > is even better than narrowing them.
Why not do both?
> The context of my message was to do the proposed change for PG16 to buy back
> a few bytes that are being added by another feature
How much would you need to buy back to "reach parity"?
Greetings,
Andres Freund