Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by developer.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E13332E0038 for ; Fri, 23 May 2008 17:31:21 -0300 (ADT) Received: from developer.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 28999-02 for ; Fri, 23 May 2008 17:31:14 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by developer.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C8872E0037 for ; Fri, 23 May 2008 17:31:17 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m4NKVGGa020375; Fri, 23 May 2008 16:31:16 -0400 (EDT) To: Mike Weber cc: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org Subject: Re: 1600 column limit per table In-reply-to: <48371C8A.7000206@tcdi.com> References: <48371C8A.7000206@tcdi.com> Comments: In-reply-to Mike Weber message dated "Fri, 23 May 2008 15:35:38 -0400" Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 16:31:16 -0400 Message-ID: <20374.1211574676@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200805/212 X-Sequence-Number: 29296 Mike Weber writes: > I ran into the 1600 column upper bound in a table and I am trying to > assess if I can work around the limit or if I am in need of a re-design > of my application. You need to redesign. The 1600 limit has some slop (intentionally) but not a lot of slop --- I think the hard maximum without breaking compatibility with 8.1's on-disk format would be 1736. Most people think that rows that wide are a sign of bad SQL design anyway, which is why there's not been any interest in trying to raise the limit. Perhaps you could collapse multiple similar columns into an array column? regards, tom lane