Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [SQL] 16 parameter limit

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Neil Conway <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org>
Cc: "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>,peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net, pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us, josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com,jproctor(at)prium(dot)net, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [SQL] 16 parameter limit
Date: 2002-04-16 04:13:31
Message-ID: 9110.1018930411@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patchespgsql-sql
Neil Conway <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org> writes:
> My vote is to set the default # of function args to some
> reasonable default (32 sounds good), and leave it at that.

Bear in mind that s/32/16/ gives you the exact state of the discussion
when we raised the limit from 8 to 16 ;-)

Still, I do not really see the value of adding a configure argument.
Anyone who can't figure out how to tweak this in pg_config.h is probably
not ready to run a non-default configuration anyhow.

If the consensus is to raise the default from 16 to 32, I won't object.
Beyond that, I'd start asking questions about who's measured the
performance hit and what they found.

On the NAMEDATALEN part of the argument: SQL92 clearly expects that
NAMEDATALEN should be 128.  But the first report of the performance
cost looked rather grim.  Has anyone retried that experiment since
we tweaked hashname to not hash all the trailing zeroes?

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2002-04-16 04:20:25
Subject: Re: ANSI Compliant Inserts
Previous:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2002-04-16 04:06:44
Subject: Re: [SQL] 16 parameter limit

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2002-04-16 04:20:25
Subject: Re: ANSI Compliant Inserts
Previous:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2002-04-16 04:06:44
Subject: Re: [SQL] 16 parameter limit

pgsql-sql by date

Next:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2002-04-16 04:36:11
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] [SQL] 16 parameter limit
Previous:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2002-04-16 04:06:44
Subject: Re: [SQL] 16 parameter limit

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group