Tom Lane wrote:
> The bloat would scale with the size of your schema, not with the amount
> of data in your tables (unless you have "name" columns in your user
> tables, which is something we've always discouraged). template1 is
> clearly a worst-case scenario, percentagewise, for NAMEDATALEN.
>
> I'm quite prepared to believe that the net cost is "a couple megs per
> database" more or less independent of how much data you store. Maybe
> that's negligible these days, or maybe it isn't ...
Seems to me it's negligible for the vast majority of applications. I
*know* it is for any appplication that I have.
We can always tell people who are doing embedded application work to
bump *down* NAMEDATALEN.
Joe
