| From: | "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Neil Conway" <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org> |
| Cc: | <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(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 03:57:04 |
| Message-ID: | GNELIHDDFBOCMGBFGEFOCECHCCAA.chriskl@familyhealth.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches pgsql-sql |
> What if someone actually uses functions with more than 32
> arguments? Their code will not longer be portable among
> PostgreSQL installations, and they'll need to get the local
> admin to recompile.
>
> I could see adding a configure option if there was a justifiable
> reason for using functions with more than 32 arguments -- but
> IMHO that is quite a bizarre situation anyway, as Peter said.
>
> My vote is to set the default # of function args to some
> reasonable default (32 sounds good), and leave it at that.
OK, agreed. Then they at least are forced to write functions that will work
on all Postgres 7.3 and above...
Chris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-04-16 03:57:20 | Re: [SQL] 16 parameter limit |
| Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2002-04-16 03:52:16 | Re: [SQL] 16 parameter limit |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-04-16 03:57:20 | Re: [SQL] 16 parameter limit |
| Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2002-04-16 03:52:16 | Re: [SQL] 16 parameter limit |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-04-16 03:57:20 | Re: [SQL] 16 parameter limit |
| Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2002-04-16 03:52:16 | Re: [SQL] 16 parameter limit |