Re: [HACKERS] Arbitrary tuple size

> > Well, now consider update of 2Gb row!
> > I worry not due to non-overwriting but about writing
> > 2Gb log record to WAL - we'll not be able to do it, sure.
> 
> Can't we write just some kind of diff (only changed pages) in WAL,
> either starting at some thresold or just based the seek/write logic of
> LOs?
> 
> It will add complexity, but having some arbitrary limits seems very
> wrong.
> 
> It will also make indexing LOs more complex, but as we don't currently
> index 
> them anyway, its not a big problem yet.

Well, we do indexing of large objects by using the OS directory code to
find a given directory entry.

> Why not ?
> 
> IMHO we should allow _arbitrary_ (in reality probably <= MAXINT), but 
> optimize for some known size and tell the users that if they exceed it
> the performance would suffer. 

If they go over a certain size, they can decide to store it in the file
system, as many users are doing now.


-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  maillist@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