Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Bernard Frankpitt <frankpit@pop.dn.net> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Sure: you want to be able to INSERT a tuple of maximum size. In the
> >> absence of dynamically sized text buffers, a reasonable estimate of
> >> the longest INSERT command of interest is going to depend on BLCKSZ.
>
> > Perhaps it would be a good idea to increase
> > the multiplier in
> > #define MAX_QUERY_SIZE (BLCKSZ * 2)
> > to something larger than 2.
>
> This entire chain of logic will fall to the ground anyway once we support
> tuples larger than a disk block, which I believe is going to happen
> before too much longer. So, rather than argue about what the multiplier
> ought to be, I think it's more productive to just press on with making
> the query buffers dynamically resizable...
Yes, even if we choose to make some other limit (like Vadim
suggested around 64K), a query operating on them could be
much bigger. I already had some progress with a data type
that uses a simple, byte oriented lz compression buffer as
internal representation.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#========================================= wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck) #
