| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | John Proctor <jproctor(at)prium(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: 16 parameter limit |
| Date: | 2002-04-05 02:40:02 |
| Message-ID: | 200204050240.g352e2W29464@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches pgsql-sql |
John Proctor wrote:
>
> RE: 16 parameter limit
>
> There was a message posted in March regarding this. Bruce replied that this
> issue did not come up often. However, I think there is more to it than
> that. I think one reason that it does not come up is because most Oracle
> DBAs are not going to dig through mailing lists and take the time to post
> questions. Once they discover that PL/pgSQL != PL/SQL they just move on.
Actually, I said it didn't come up much, but I know of several heavy
PL/pgSQL users who do have trouble with the 16 parameter limit, and I am
looking into increasing it. If someone wants to do some legwork, go
ahead. I do think it needs to be increases. The lack of complains
makes it hard for me to advocate increasing it, especially if there is a
disk space penalty, but personally, I do think it needs increasing.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2002-04-05 02:46:17 | Re: What's the CURRENT schema ? |
| Previous Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2002-04-05 02:30:38 | Re: Datatype time PostGreSql 7.2.1 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-04-05 02:59:09 | Re: please apply patch - build on Unixware with GCC |
| Previous Message | Nicolas Bazin | 2002-04-05 00:14:49 | Re: please apply patch - build on Unixware with GCC |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-04-05 05:59:49 | Re: Rule trouble (looks to me exactly like the example) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-04-04 19:29:13 | Re: Rule trouble (looks to me exactly like the example) |