Re: Is there a drawback when changing NAMEDATALEN to 64?
От | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Is there a drawback when changing NAMEDATALEN to 64? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200201242349.g0ONnUZ05345@candle.pha.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Is there a drawback when changing NAMEDATALEN to 64? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
Tom Lane wrote: > Frank Joerdens <frank@joerdens.de> writes: > > Is there a drawback when changing NAMEDATALEN to 64? Put the other way > > 'round, what's the thinking behind having a default of 32? > > That value was chosen years ago, when machines were slower and disks > smaller than today. > > There's been a proposal on the table for awhile to increase the standard > NAMEDATALEN value to 64, but we haven't got round to it. > > BTW, there is at least a small potential for breaking applications with > this change: NAMEDATALEN is part of the exported libpq ABI, because it > affects the representation of PGnotify structures. When and if we do > change the standard setting, I'm inclined to reverse the order of the > fields in PGnotify, so that accesses to be_pid don't depend on > NAMEDATALEN. TODO updated: * Increase identifier length (NAMEDATALEN) if small performance hit; change struct pgNotify to use pid first, breaks notify API -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: