On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 02:01:19PM +0200, Ivan Voras wrote:
> On 11/04/2014 16:45, Jack.O'sulli...@tessella.com wrote:
>
> > With point two, does this mean that any table with a bytea datatype is
> > limited to 4 billion rows (which would seem in conflict with the
> > "unlimited rows" shown by http://www.postgresql.org/about)? If we had
> > rows where the bytea was a "null" entry would they contribute towards
> > this total or is it 4 billion non-null entries?
>
> This seems strange. A core developer should confirm this but it doesn't
> make much sense - "bytea" fields are stored the same as "text" fields
> (including varchar etc), i.e. the "varlena" internal representation, so
> having the limit you are talking about would mean that any non-trivial
> table with long-ish text fields would be limited to 2^32 entries...
[ moved to hackers ]
Uh, I had not thought of this before but I think we need oids for toast
storage, which would explain this wiki text:
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/BinaryFilesInDB
Storing binary data using bytea or text data types
Minus
bytea and text data type both use TOAST
limited to 1G per entry
--> 4 Billion entries per table
Is that correct?
--
Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
