Re: [pgsql-admin] "Soft-hitting" the 1600 column limit - Mailing list pgsql-admin

From Wells Oliver
Subject Re: [pgsql-admin] "Soft-hitting" the 1600 column limit
Date
Msg-id CAOC+FBXehj4X2DMfytnPKHRWrWWZjq1G9OfUXsMop5Tex7hrvg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to [pgsql-admin] "Soft-hitting" the 1600 column limit  (nunks <nunks.lol@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [pgsql-admin] "Soft-hitting" the 1600 column limit
List pgsql-admin
let's just stop for a moment and talk about what you're doing that requires *1600 columns* because my jaw is hitting the floor.

On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 9:39 AM, nunks <nunks.lol@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello!

I'm trying to support an application in production at work, and for some obscure reason the developer made it drop and re-create a column periodically. 

I know this is a bad practice (to say the least), and I'm telling them to fix it, but after the 1600th drop/add cycle, PostgreSQL starts giving out the column limit error:

    ERROR:  tables can have at most 1600 columns

I reproduced this behavior in PostgreSQL 10.3 with a simple bash loop and a two-column table, one of which is fixed and the other is repeatedly dropped and re-created until the 1600 limit is reached.

To me this is pretty cool, since I can use this limit as leverage to push the developers to the right path, but should Postgres be doing that? It's as if it doesn't decrement some counter when a column is dropped.

Many thanks!
Bruno

----------
“Life beats down and crushes the soul and art reminds you that you have one.

- Stella Adler



--

pgsql-admin by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [pgsql-admin] "Soft-hitting" the 1600 column limit
Next
From: Scott Ribe
Date:
Subject: Re: [pgsql-admin] "Soft-hitting" the 1600 column limit