From: | Pierre-Frédéric Caillaud <lists(at)boutiquenumerique(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Michael Fuhr" <mike(at)fuhr(dot)org>, "Oluwatope Akinniyi" <topeakinniyi(at)shepherdhill(dot)biz> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Function Parameters |
Date: | 2005-01-02 11:09:19 |
Message-ID: | opsjy2ltmgcq72hf@musicbox |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Maybe you could use arrays as some function parameters ?
Can you explain why you need so many parameters ?
On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 22:25:02 -0700, Michael Fuhr <mike(at)fuhr(dot)org> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 02, 2005 at 01:31:22AM +0000, Oluwatope Akinniyi wrote:
>
>> I tried to create a function with about 60 input parameters and got an
>> error message that a function cannot take more than 32 parameters.
>
> What's the function's purpose? Why does it need so many arguments?
> You might be able to get around the limitation with a composite
> type, but maybe there's a different way to do what you want.
>
> Another possibility would be to rebuild PostgreSQL and change the
> limit. I don't know what the implications are other than what the
> comment in the code says: "There is no specific upper limit, although
> large values will waste system-table space and processing time" and
> "Changing these requires an initdb."
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Sim Zacks | 2005-01-02 12:20:04 | citext datatype |
Previous Message | Pierre-Frédéric Caillaud | 2005-01-02 11:08:44 | Re: many similar indexbased selects are extremely slow |