On 2014-01-06 12:40:25 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > On 2014-01-06 11:08:41 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > > Yea. But at least it would fail reliably instead of just under > > concurrency and other strange circumstances - and there'd be a safe way > > out. Currently there seem to be all sorts of odd behaviour possible. > > > > I simply don't have a better idea :( > > Is "forcibly detoast everything" a complete no-go? I realize there > are performance concerns with that approach, but I'm not sure how > realistic a worry it actually is.
The scenario I am primarily worried about is turning a record assignment which previously took up to BLOCK_SIZE + slop amount of memory into something taking up to a gigabyte. That's a pretty damn hefty change. And there's no good way of preventing it short of using a variable for each actually desired column which imnsho isn't really a solution. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
