| From: | Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Document parameter count limit |
| Date: | 2022-11-10 17:58:34 |
| Message-ID: | CADkLM=cQuA=3MePctch9SbfP8gohFn9p9hBF0RjB9aDf6GR3yw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
>
> + <entry>if you are reading this prepatorily, please redesign your
> query to use temporary tables or arrays</entry>
>
I agree with the documentation of this parameter.
I agree with dissuading anyone from attempting to change it
The wording is bordering on snark (however well deserved) and I think the
voice is slightly off.
Alternate suggestion:
Queries approaching this limit usually can be refactored to use arrays or
temporary tables, thus reducing parameter overhead.
The bit about parameter overhead appeals to the reader's desire for
performance, rather than just focusing on "you shouldn't want this".
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2022-11-10 17:59:46 | Re: Lock on ShmemVariableCache fields? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-11-10 17:37:38 | Re: Ability to reference other extensions by schema in extension scripts |