Craig Ringer writes: > >Thoughts, folks? Does this matter in practice, since anything you'd > want to index will in practice be small enough or a candidate for > full-text indexing? Here's my case: the field is meant to hold a person's name, so it's usually well under the 8191-byte limit. I want it indexed so that I can sort on it quickly. I also want it to be robust against abuse, so if someone does enter the text of _War and Peace_ as their name, I want to handle that gracefully. I can achieve that by my own programming, outside of postgresql, and that's fine if I'm the only one who has gotten into this fix. Otoh if it's a common problem then there's a reason why removing the limitation might matter in practice. Regards, --- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
