On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 12:33:54PM +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> I guess it's not impossible for pg_dump to fail on this even without
> this change. If someone had increased the limit on an instance with
> say 16k page to something over what TOAST_TUPLE_TARGET_MAIN would be
> on a standard instance,
On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 18:49, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Now, can we really increase the minimum value as you and Pavan
> propose? For now anything between 128 and TOAST_TUPLE_TARGET gets
> silently ignored, but if we increase the threshold as you propose we
> could prevent some dumps to be restore
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 02:20:27PM +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> The options seem to be:
> 1. Make the lower limit of toast_tuple_target the same as
> TOAST_TUPLE_THRESHOLD; or
> 2. Require an AccessExclusiveLock when setting toast_tuple_target and
> call create_toast_table() to ensure we get a toa
On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 23:30, David Rowley wrote:
> I've attached a patch which increases the lower limit up to
> TOAST_TUPLE_TARGET. Unfortunately, reloptions don't have an
> assign_hook like GUCs do. Unless we add those we've no way to still
> accept lower values without an error. Does anyone
On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 at 17:31, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
> IMV it makes sense to simply cap the lower limit of toast_tuple_target to the
> compile time default and update docs to reflect that. Otherwise, we need to
> deal with the possibility of dynamically creating the toast table if the
> relation
On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 at 17:31, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
> IMV it makes sense to simply cap the lower limit of toast_tuple_target to the
> compile time default and update docs to reflect that. Otherwise, we need to
> deal with the possibility of dynamically creating the toast table if the
> relation
On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 11:36 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
>
> I mean that toast_tuple_target is broken as-is, because it should be
> used on the new tuples of a relation as a threshold to decide if this
> tuple should be toasted or not, but we don't actually use the
> reloption value for that deci
On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 12:13:51PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 2:38 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Shouldn't we use the reloption instead of the compiled threshold to
>> determine if a tuple should be toasted or not? Perhaps I am missing
>> something? It seems to me that thi
On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 2:38 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> Hi all,
> (Adding Simon as the author of toast_tuple_target, as well Andrew and
> Pavan in CC.)
>
> toast_tuple_target has been introduced in 2017 by c251336 as of v11.
> And while reviewing Pavan's patch to have more complex control over
> t
