Re: ERROR row is too big size 9336, exceeds size 8160 when populating record with tsquery and tsvector fields - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: ERROR row is too big size 9336, exceeds size 8160 when populating record with tsquery and tsvector fields
Date
Msg-id 29927.1290094098@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: ERROR row is too big size 9336, exceeds size 8160 when populating record with tsquery and tsvector fields  (Allan Kamau <kamauallan@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: ERROR row is too big size 9336, exceeds size 8160 when populating record with tsquery and tsvector fields
List pgsql-general
Allan Kamau <kamauallan@gmail.com> writes:
> CREATE TABLE farm.produce
> (id INTEGER NOT NULL DEFAULT NEXTVAL('farm.produce_seq')
> ,process___id TEXT NOT NULL
> ,item_names tsvector NULL
> ,product__ids__tsquery tsquery NULL
> ,product__ids__tsvector tsvector NULL
> ,population_time TIMESTAMP NOT NULL DEFAULT clock_timestamp()
> ,PRIMARY KEY(id)
> )

> It seems the tsvector field did not contribute to this error as the
> error occurred when I attempted to populate the tsquery field with
> rather long tsquery data. Without populating the tsvector field but
> got the same error with the same size message indicating that the data
> in the tsvector fields do not lead to this problem.

Yeah, on poking into the system catalogs I see that tsquery is declared
as not supporting toasting (it has typstorage = 'p'lain).  I don't
offhand know the implementation reason for that or whether it would be
a good idea to change it.  But obviously Teodor's expectation was that
nobody would ever want to store large tsqueries on disk.  I guess it
would be worth asking what's your use-case for storing tsquery, as
opposed to tsvector?

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Whose bug is this?
Next
From: Scott Ribe
Date:
Subject: Re: Whose bug is this?