I wrote:
> I've been toying with the idea of converting the oidvector and
> int2vector datatypes from fixed-width arrays to variable-length;
> that is, stick a varlena length word on the front and store only
> pronargs or indnatts entries instead of a fixed number.
I have a prototype patch that do
Alvaro, Tom,
> > Very likely we could kick it up to 100 or so without feeling any pain;
> > how high were you thinking?
>
> I used to see people asking to raise it to 64 or so. ÂNot sure if it
> would be useful to go higher than that ... much less now that we have
> full-fledged support for row ty
On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 03:41:08PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 12:44:41PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I've been toying with the idea of converting the oidvector and
> >> int2vector datatypes from fixed-width arrays to variable-leng
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 12:44:41PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I've been toying with the idea of converting the oidvector and
>> int2vector datatypes from fixed-width arrays to variable-length;
>> that is, stick a varlena length word on the front and store
On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 12:44:41PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I've been toying with the idea of converting the oidvector and
> int2vector datatypes from fixed-width arrays to variable-length;
> that is, stick a varlena length word on the front and store only
> pronargs or indnatts entries instead of
I've been toying with the idea of converting the oidvector and
int2vector datatypes from fixed-width arrays to variable-length;
that is, stick a varlena length word on the front and store only
pronargs or indnatts entries instead of a fixed number.
This would not immediately allow us to eliminate
