Re: Save a few bytes in pg_attribute - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Save a few bytes in pg_attribute
Date
Msg-id 933390.1679323056@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Save a few bytes in pg_attribute  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: Save a few bytes in pg_attribute  (Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>)
Re: Save a few bytes in pg_attribute  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> After the discussion in [0] ff., I was looking around in pg_attribute 
> and noticed that we could possibly save 4 bytes.  We could change both 
> attstattarget and attinhcount from int4 to int2, which together with 
> some reordering would save 4 bytes from the fixed portion.

> attstattarget is already limited to 10000, so this wouldn't lose 
> anything.  For attinhcount, I don't see any documented limits.  But it 
> seems unlikely to me that someone would need more than 32k immediate 
> inheritance parents on a column.  (Maybe an overflow check would be 
> useful, though, to prevent shenanigans.)

> The attached patch seems to work.  Thoughts?

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?

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Masahiko Sawada
Date:
Subject: Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum
Next
From: Daniel Gustafsson
Date:
Subject: Re: Question: Do we have a rule to use "PostgreSQL" and "PostgreSQL" separately?