| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org (Neil Conway) |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Open 7.3 items |
| Date: | 2002-07-31 15:31:13 |
| Message-ID: | 28487.1028129473@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org (Neil Conway) writes:
>> FUNC_MAX_ARGS - disk/performance penalty for increase, 24, 32?
> Until someone takes the time to determine what the performance
> implications of this change will be, I don't think we should
> change this. Given that no one has done any testing, I'm not
> convinced that there's a lot of demand for this anyway.
The OpenACS guys really really wanted larger FUNC_MAX_ARGS (I think
they had some 25-arg functions). And we do see questions about
increasing the limit fairly often on the lists. I suspect we could
bump it up to 32 at little cost --- but someone should run some
experiments to verify.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | John Liu | 2002-07-31 16:12:30 | many idle processes |
| Previous Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2002-07-31 15:30:37 | Re: WAL file location |