| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: hstore improvements? |
| Date: | 2009-03-15 21:50:05 |
| Message-ID: | 49BD780D.60700@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
>> As an hstore user, I'd be fine with simply limiting it to 64K (or, heck,
>> 8K) and throwing an error. I'd also be fine with limiting keys to 255
>> bytes, although we'd have to warn people.
>
> Yeah, 255 might well be more of a problem than the other limit. We
> could move to something like 10/22 or 12/20 split, which would give
> us 1KB/4MB or 4KB/1MB limits.
Anything you like. What I'm saying is that I think I use hstore more
heavily than most people, and that if the limits were as low as 255b/8K
it wouldn't hurt me any.
I suppose 1K/4MB would allow OO-types to use hstore as an object store,
so you'll make them happy with a new foot gun. Why not?
--Josh
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-03-15 22:06:30 | Re: hstore patch, part 1 |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2009-03-15 21:47:14 | Re: Should SET ROLE inherit config params? |