Received: from sss.sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [206.210.65.6]) by hub.org (8.9.2/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA48846 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 11:16:49 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) Received: from sss.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.sss.pgh.pa.us (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA02476; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 11:15:58 -0500 (EST) To: Ari Halberstadt cc: pgsql-interfaces@postgreSQL.org Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] JDBC: detecting lost backend; 8192 byte limit in queries In-reply-to: Your message of Wed, 17 Feb 1999 23:10:36 -0500 Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 11:15:58 -0500 Message-ID: <2473.919354558@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane Ari Halberstadt writes: > - how do I store more than 8192 bytes? Eliminating the restriction on the textual length of a query is on my to-do list. It's probably not going to happen in time for 6.5, but maybe for 6.6 (say, this summer). There is a *separate* restriction on the stored size of a tuple, namely that it not exceed 1 disk block --- which just happens to be 8K as well by default, but it's a different restriction on a different kind of data. If your objective is to be able to insert a text field longer than 8K then both of these restrictions will get in your way. There has been some talk of allowing tuples to span multiple disk blocks, but I get the impression that it's still a ways from happening. In the meantime it is possible to compile Postgres with a larger block size; if 16K or so per tuple would solve your problem then that is a feasible workaround. (Would someone who's done that note for the record exactly what to change?) The query length limit appears as a constant in enough different places that patching it up to a larger value would probably be pretty tedious :-(. I haven't tried it. regards, tom lane