On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 09:43:31AM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 9:09 AM Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > You can't REINDEX safely regarding that note. > > > > Actually running into that problem is quite unlikely; and if you did > > hit it, it'd just mean that the REINDEX fails, not that you have any > > urgent problem to fix. I'd encourage you to just go ahead and REINDEX, > > if you have indexes that could benefit from the other changes. > > Right. It is hard to imagine an application that evolved to fully rely > on the previous slightly higher limit, and cannot tolerate a reduction > in the limit by only 8 bytes. The limit applies to a tuple *after* > TOAST compression has been applied. Right. Pg_upgrade is fast, but we don't want it limiting file format changes that can improve Postgres. Allowing REINDEX to fix things is the best of both worlds --- fast upgrades, and after some REINDEX-ing, faster Postgres. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@xxxxxxxxxx> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +
