Re: [HACKERS] Rule plan size for views?
От | jwieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck) |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Rule plan size for views? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | m0y9QAo-000BFRC@orion.SAPserv.Hamburg.dsh.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Rule plan size for views? (darrenk@insightdist.com (Darren King)) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> > > > > What is the rule size for views? > > > > This seems to have changed in this beta; I have a view that worked in a > > previous beta but fails to create. > > "ERROR: DefineQueryRewrite: rule plan string too big." > > > > I have about 33 column headings with a join of 5 tables. > > > > I have the latest cvsup tree as of a few minutes ago. > > Linux 2.0.30 > > pgcc compiler > > The rule plan is stored as a tuple, hence for this release that limit > is a little under 8k. > > For 6.4, you will be able to use a bigger block size, therefore have > bigger tuples and this should then work again. > > Sounds like the plan internally grew (possible w/subselect stuff?!?) and > has gone over that 8k limit. I think it must be due to the cleanups in the node-print and read funcs. They now output/read ALL fields in the nodes. > > I know it's little consolation, but as soon as I can get the variable > block size working (actually only breaks in the create_triggers regression > test when sorting to disk), I could post it as a patch for 6.3 as well as > put it into the 6.4 tree. > > darrenk > > Jan -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #======================================== jwieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck) #
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: