Alex Hunsaker wrote:
>On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 22:44, Alex Hunsaker <badalex@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Looking at the patch we dont compress things > 1M anymore so I thought
>> maybe I was hitting that. But no luck there are only 39 rows where
>> the row size > 1M... With those 39 being about 22M each.
>Oh my... 25 * 40 = 1000M
>So I guess my question is are we going to recommend to people that
>they manually compress their data just for 8.4?
What seems to be hurting the most is the 1MB upper limit. What is the
rationale behind that limit?
What would be the downside to require compressibility instead?
--
Sincerely, Stephen R. van den Berg.
"Always remember that you are unique. Just like everyone else."