Re: [HACKERS] Re: Bugs in Postgres

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: [HACKERS] Re: Bugs in Postgres
Дата
Msg-id 1071.951924974@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Bugs in Postgres  (Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>)
Список pgsql-hackers
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


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: "Kardos, Dr. Andreas"
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Where's the SQL3 spec?
Следующее
От: Karel Zak - Zakkr
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] NO-CREATE-TABLE and NO-LOCK-TABLE