From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: INSERT ON CONFLICT of "wide" table: target lists can have at most
 1664 entries
In-reply-to: <20161204163237.GA8030@telsasoft.com>
References: <20161204163237.GA8030@telsasoft.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
	message dated "Sun, 04 Dec 2016 10:32:37 -0600"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <19398.1480881925.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2016 15:05:25 -0500
Message-ID: <19399.1480881925@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org

Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com> writes:
> I'm implementing unique indices to allow "upsert" (and pg_repack and..), =
but
> running into a problem when the table has >830 columns (we have some tabl=
es
> which are at the 1600 column limit, and have previously worked around that
> limit using arrays or multiple tables).

Yeah, this is a bug, but fortunately the fix is pretty trivial.  See

https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=3Dpostgresql.git;a=3Dcommitdiff;h=3Dda=
05d0ebc637a84ba41a172b32552557ebad199f

			regards, tom lane


--=20
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general