Re: 16 parameter limit

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: John Proctor <jproctor(at)prium(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: 16 parameter limit
Date: 2002-04-05 02:40:02
Message-ID: 200204050240.g352e2W29464@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches pgsql-sql

John Proctor wrote:
>
> RE: 16 parameter limit
>
> There was a message posted in March regarding this. Bruce replied that this
> issue did not come up often. However, I think there is more to it than
> that. I think one reason that it does not come up is because most Oracle
> DBAs are not going to dig through mailing lists and take the time to post
> questions. Once they discover that PL/pgSQL != PL/SQL they just move on.

Actually, I said it didn't come up much, but I know of several heavy
PL/pgSQL users who do have trouble with the 16 parameter limit, and I am
looking into increasing it. If someone wants to do some legwork, go
ahead. I do think it needs to be increases. The lack of complains
makes it hard for me to advocate increasing it, especially if there is a
disk space penalty, but personally, I do think it needs increasing.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Christopher Kings-Lynne 2002-04-05 02:46:17 Re: What's the CURRENT schema ?
Previous Message Thomas Lockhart 2002-04-05 02:30:38 Re: Datatype time PostGreSql 7.2.1

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2002-04-05 02:59:09 Re: please apply patch - build on Unixware with GCC
Previous Message Nicolas Bazin 2002-04-05 00:14:49 Re: please apply patch - build on Unixware with GCC

Browse pgsql-sql by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2002-04-05 05:59:49 Re: Rule trouble (looks to me exactly like the example)
Previous Message Tom Lane 2002-04-04 19:29:13 Re: Rule trouble (looks to me exactly like the example)