Re: Is there a drawback when changing NAMEDATALEN to 64?

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Frank Joerdens <frank(at)joerdens(dot)de>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Is there a drawback when changing NAMEDATALEN to 64?
Date: 2002-01-24 23:49:30
Message-ID: 200201242349.g0ONnUZ05345@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Tom Lane wrote:
> Frank Joerdens <frank(at)joerdens(dot)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(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2002-01-24 23:51:03 Re: Simple 'type' question
Previous Message Tim Barnard 2002-01-24 23:11:36 Simple 'type' question