Hi, On 2023-03-21 17:36:48 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 21.03.23 00:51, Tom Lane wrote: > > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > > > On 2023-03-20 10:37:36 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > > > I agree that attinhcount could be narrowed, but I have some concern > > > > about attstattarget. IIRC, the limit on attstattarget was once 1000 > > > > and then we raised it to 10000. Is it inconceivable that we might > > > > want to raise it to 100000 someday? > > > > > Hard to believe that'd happen in a minor version - and I don't think > > > there'd > > > an issue with widening it again in a major version? > > > > True. However, I think Tomas' idea of making these columns nullable > > is even better than narrowing them.
Why not do both? > The context of my message was to do the proposed change for PG16 to buy back > a few bytes that are being added by another feature How much would you need to buy back to "reach parity"? Greetings, Andres Freund