I've missed that - >4 billion external datums >typically use a lot of space.
Not quite so. It's 8 Tb for the minimal size of toasted data (about 2 Kb). In my practice tables with more than 5 billions of rows are not of something out of the ordinary (highly loaded databases with large amounts of data in use). On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 1:12 AM Nikita Malakhov <huku...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I'll check that tomorrow. If it is so then there won't be a problem keeping > old tables without re-toasting. > > On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 1:10 AM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On 2022-11-28 16:57:53 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> > As I said before, I think there's a decent argument that some people >> > will want the option to stay with 4-byte TOAST OIDs indefinitely, >> > at least for smaller tables. >> >> I think we'll need to do something about the width of varatt_external to >> make >> the conversion to 64bit toast oids viable - and if we do, I don't think >> there's a decent argument for staying with 4 byte toast OIDs. I think the >> varatt_external equivalent would end up being smaller in just about all >> cases. >> And as you said earlier, the increased overhead inside the toast table / >> index >> is not relevant compared to the size of toasted datums. >> >> Greetings, >> >> Andres Freund >> > > > -- > Regards, > Nikita Malakhov > Postgres Professional > https://postgrespro.ru/ > -- Regards, Nikita Malakhov Postgres Professional https://postgrespro.ru/