On 2020-Aug-11, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 1:59 AM Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 05:32:21PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > > > Do we really want to end up with several separate defines for different > > > type of catalog batch inserts? That doesn't seem like a good > > > thing. Think there should be a single define for all catalog bulk > > > inserts. > > > > Unlikely so, but I kept them separate to potentially lower the > > threshold of 64kB for catalog rows that have a lower average size than > > pg_attribute. > > Uh, why would we want to do that?
Yeah. As I understand, the only reason to have this number is to avoid an arbitrarily large number of entries created as a single multi-insert WAL record ... but does that really ever happen? I guess if you create a table with some really complicated schema you might get, say, a hundred pg_depend rows at once. But to fill eight complete pages of pg_depend entries sounds astoundingly ridiculous already -- I'd say it's just an easy way to spell "infinity" for this. Tweaking one infinity value to become some other infinity value sounds useless. So I agree with what Andres said. Let's have just one such define and be done with it. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
