| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, John Proctor <jproctor(at)prium(dot)net>, pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: 16 parameter limit |
| Date: | 2002-04-05 23:33:59 |
| Message-ID: | 10982.1018049639@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches pgsql-sql |
"Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> However, we also want to support users who are porting their PL/SQL
> applications, which may not be easily translated into %rowtype
> paramters.
Well, probably the $64 question there is: what is Oracle's limit on
number of parameters?
> What do you (personally) think about trying to get RH involved in
> expanding PL/pgSQL's capabilites as a way fo targeting Oracle's users
> for RHDB?
Seems like a good idea in the abstract ... but the hard question is what
are you willing to see *not* get done in order to put cycles on plpgsql.
And there's not a large supply of cycles.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-04-05 23:41:32 | Re: Suggestion for optimization |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2002-04-05 23:26:13 | Re: 16 parameter limit |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2002-04-05 23:51:35 | Re: 16 parameter limit |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2002-04-05 23:26:13 | Re: 16 parameter limit |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-04-05 23:50:16 | Re: intersect performance (PG 7.1.3 vs 7.2) |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2002-04-05 23:26:13 | Re: 16 parameter limit |