Date: Tue, 6 May 2025 11:41:49 -0500
From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Nisha Moond <nisha.moond412@gmail.com>,
	Euler Taveira <euler@eulerto.com>,
	Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>,
	Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>,
	"Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Large expressions in indexes can't be stored (non-TOASTable)
Message-ID: <aBo7zUx3XpbA2Jo1@nathan>
References: <aAla1fg-1vPeXNck@nathan>
 <1503201.1745444021@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <aAlfU06XTChyIGBD@nathan>
 <aA_zMYasoUwNrDx1@nathan>
 <905635.1745876108@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <aA_4S5ZBaI_Qje2s@nathan>
 <910625.1745878759@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <aBEO7vzq1jw9L_Pv@nathan>
 <1055453.1745949714@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <aBF1ii89jdzQsVvB@paquier.xyz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <aBF1ii89jdzQsVvB@paquier.xyz>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/aBo7zUx3XpbA2Jo1%40nathan>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 09:57:46AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 02:01:54PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm inclined to argue that it's a bug fix and therefore still in-scope
>> for v18.  The fact that we can't back-patch such a change is all the
>> more reason to not let it slide another year.
> 
> Not on the RMT.  I have looked at the patch, and I would agree with
> doing that now in v18 rather than wait for v19 to open up.
> 
>> But probably the RMT should make the call.
> 
> Yes.

I brought this up with the RMT, and everyone seemed okay with committing it
for v18.

> This has been mentioned upthread, but I am questioning the wisdom of
> putting the restriction based on MAX_RONAME_LEN only in
> pg_replication_origin_create(), while replorigin_create() is the one
> that actually matters.  While it is true that these restrictions are
> enforced for the current callers in core, it could also be called by
> stuff outside of core.  It seems important to me to let these
> potential callers know about the restriction in place.

I can move it back to replorigin_create().  I don't have a strong opinion
here.

-- 
nathan