Re: [HACKERS] Relpartbound, toasting and pg_class
От | Andres Freund |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Relpartbound, toasting and pg_class |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20170612211630.6ycp5q4sdnimruz5@alap3.anarazel.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Relpartbound, toasting and pg_class (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Relpartbound, toasting and pg_class
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2017-06-12 17:10:28 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 6/12/17 15:38, Andres Freund wrote: > > Just noticed that pg_class now has several varlena fields: > > #ifdef CATALOG_VARLEN /* variable-length fields start here */ > > /* NOTE: These fields are not present in a relcache entry's rd_rel field. */ > > aclitem relacl[1]; /* access permissions */ > > text reloptions[1]; /* access-method-specific options */ > > pg_node_tree relpartbound; /* partition bound node tree */ > > #endif > > > > of those relpartbound is fairly new. And pretty much unbounded in > > size. Aren't we going to run into issues because pg_class doesn't have a > > toast table? It's quite reasonable to use a multi-field composite type > > as a partition boundary... > > Cases where relacl became too large have been known to exist. I'm not > sure whether relpartbound can really be that large to change the > scenario significantly. Because it's further increasing the size by something unbounded in size, which'll not uncommonly be large? It makes a fair amount of sense to partition by multiple columns at once (using the expression syntax). - Andres
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: