From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>,
        pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Save a few bytes in pg_attribute
In-reply-to: <20230320234457.s2magjpvmeqg6nqe@awork3.anarazel.de>
References: <d07ffc2b-e0e8-77f7-38fb-be921dff71af@enterprisedb.com> <933390.1679323056@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20230320234457.s2magjpvmeqg6nqe@awork3.anarazel.de>
Comments: In-reply-to Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
	message dated "Mon, 20 Mar 2023 16:44:57 -0700"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1110937.1679356272.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2023 19:51:12 -0400
Message-ID: <1110938.1679356272@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1110938.1679356272%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2023-03-20 10:37:36 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I agree that attinhcount could be narrowed, but I have some concern
>> about attstattarget.  IIRC, the limit on attstattarget was once 1000
>> and then we raised it to 10000.  Is it inconceivable that we might
>> want to raise it to 100000 someday?

> Hard to believe that'd happen in a minor version - and I don't think there'd
> an issue with widening it again in a major version?

True.  However, I think Tomas' idea of making these columns nullable
is even better than narrowing them.

			regards, tom lane