On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 11:16:58 -0400, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
wrote:
>> This 1600 column limit has nothing to do with block size.
>
>Right, but that's not the only limit on number of columns.
I just wanted to make clear that increasing page size does not enable
you to get beyond that 1600 column limit. This not so uncommon
misbelief is ... well, I wouldn't say caused, but at least not
contradicted by
http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/limitations.html
| Maximum number of 250 - 1600 depending
| columns in a table on column types
| [...]
| The maximum table size and maximum number of columns can be
| increased if the default block size is increased to 32k.
>But raise the page size, and these
>limits increase, possibly allowing the 1600 number to become the actual
>limiting factor.
Theoretically with int2 or "char" columns the 1600 columns limit can
be reached even without changing the page size. Figuring out a use
case for such a table is another story ...
Servus
Manfred
