| From: | "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "John Proctor" <jproctor(at)prium(dot)net>, "PostgreSQL-patches" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [SQL] 16 parameter limit |
| Date: | 2002-04-16 03:35:57 |
| Message-ID: | GNELIHDDFBOCMGBFGEFOKECGCCAA.chriskl@familyhealth.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches pgsql-sql |
> > Are we staying at 16 as the default? I personally think we can
> > increase it to 32 with little penalty,
>
> If you want to increase it, let's just increase it and not add any more
> configure options. If someone wants more than 32 then we really need to
> start talking about design issues.
Why not give them the configure option? It's not good HCI to impose
arbitrary limits on people...?
We can default it to 32, since there's demand for it. If a particular user
decided to configure it higher, then they do that knowing that it may cause
performance degradation. It's good to give them that choice though.
Chris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2002-04-16 03:41:25 | Re: ANSI Compliant Inserts |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2002-04-16 03:34:06 | Re: [SQL] 16 parameter limit |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2002-04-16 03:41:25 | Re: ANSI Compliant Inserts |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2002-04-16 03:34:06 | Re: [SQL] 16 parameter limit |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Neil Conway | 2002-04-16 03:42:35 | Re: [PATCHES] [SQL] 16 parameter limit |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2002-04-16 03:34:06 | Re: [SQL] 16 parameter limit |