Re: [HACKERS] Re: Bugs in Postgres

Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
> The plpgsql function problem sounds like an issue with an index on a
> system table, and may have been fixed for the upcoming release, but I
> don't recall anything specifically.

Yes, that sure sounds like an index-tuple-size overflow in the index
that 6.5.* and prior versions kept on pg_proc's prosrc field.  7.0
doesn't keep such an index, so it's proof against this particular limit.

IIRC, the maximum safe length of a procedure definition in <=6.5 is
2700 bytes.  Sometimes you will get away with more, sometimes not,
depending on what winds up on the same index page with your procedure...
        regards, tom lane