On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 08:17:37 -0700 David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 02, 2008 at 09:22:50AM +0200, Bjørn T Johansen wrote: > > On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 03:04:04 -0400 > > Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > =?UTF-8?Q?Bj=C3=B8rn?= T Johansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > What does this mean and how can it be fixed? > > > > > > Reduce the number of columns in your SELECTs? > > > > > > This whiffs to me of excruciatingly bad schema design. How could > > > you possibly need upwards of a thousand columns in a query result? > > > IMHO reasonable column counts are O(10), not O(bignum). > > > > Well, I do agree but it is not my design and a "fix" in PostgreSQL > > would be quicker than fixing the design.... > > That's where you're badly mistaken. Your application is completely > broken, and trying to adjust everybody else's Postgres to accommodate > *your* broken application is both selfish and short-sighted. It's > selfish because you're asking others to do work they don't need to do > just so you can avoid doing work you need to do, and it's > short-sighted because your application is guaranteed to be broken in > lots of other ways if it's broken this way. > > Fix the application, and if you can't, find another job where they're > not being idiots. There are plenty of Postgres-related jobs out > there. > > Cheers, > David. Actually, this discussion was finished a long time ago (we are already looking at the Hibernate config and domain modell).. And btw, I wasn't proposing a change in PostgreSQL, only if there were some config that could be changed to accomodate this... BTJ -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
