| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Document parameter count limit |
| Date: | 2022-11-10 18:01:18 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuway3C8j0wEHypx8TN7LxQkv98J0HU33shrtsq4eZUGNHg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 10:58 AM Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
>
>> + <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".
>
Yeah, the wording is a bit tongue-in-cheek. Figured assuming a committer
wants this at all we'd come up with better wording. I like your suggestion.
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Imseih (AWS), Sami | 2022-11-10 18:20:34 | Re: Call lazy_check_wraparound_failsafe earlier for parallel vacuum |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2022-11-10 17:59:46 | Re: Lock on ShmemVariableCache fields? |