X-Original-To: pgsql-patches-postgresql.org@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (wm.hub.org [200.46.204.128]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F68B9FA43C; Wed, 19 Jul 2006 00:22:25 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.128]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 66589-01; Wed, 19 Jul 2006 03:22:20 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from houston.familyhealth.com.au (houston.au.fhnetwork.com [203.22.197.21]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D87E9FA25A; Wed, 19 Jul 2006 00:22:20 -0300 (ADT) Received: from houston.familyhealth.com.au (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by houston.familyhealth.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9F4225754; Wed, 19 Jul 2006 09:18:20 +0800 (WST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (work-48.internal [192.168.0.48]) by houston.familyhealth.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 057692551A; Wed, 19 Jul 2006 09:18:16 +0800 (WST) Message-ID: <44BD8854.9060506@calorieking.com> Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 09:18:12 +0800 From: Christopher Kings-Lynne User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (Windows/20060516) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Lane Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Andrew Dunstan , Joe Conway , Bernd Helmle , Peter Eisentraut , "Patches (PostgreSQL)" , Susanne Ebrecht Subject: Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features? References: <44B69778.5050104@dunslane.net> <50461.84.63.113.55.1152832991.squirrel@pezone.net> <44B7ADFC.90205@dunslane.net> <44BC0432.3040509@joeconway.com> <44BC661F.80609@joeconway.com> <44BCD06C.3060409@calorieking.com> <44BCF1D4.3010807@dunslane.net> <5842.1153246741@sss.pgh.pa.us> In-Reply-To: <5842.1153246741@sss.pgh.pa.us> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-familyhealth-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-familyhealth-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-familyhealth-MailScanner-From: chris.kings-lynne@calorieking.com X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200607/147 X-Sequence-Number: 20301 > I did some experimentation just now, and could not get mysql to accept a > command longer than about 1 million bytes. It complains about > Got a packet bigger than 'max_allowed_packet' bytes > which seems a bit odd because max_allowed_packet is allegedly set to > 16 million, but anyway I don't think people are going to be loading any > million-row tables using single INSERT commands in mysql either. Strange. Last time I checked I thought MySQL dump used 'multivalue lists in inserts' for dumps, for the same reason that we use COPY