From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | 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 02:58:51 |
Message-ID: | 200204160258.g3G2wpG01075@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches pgsql-sql |
The following patch adds --maxindfuncparams to configure to allow you to
more easily set the maximum number of function parameters and columns
in an index. (Can someone come up with a better name?)
The patch also removes --def_maxbackends, which Tom reported a few weeks
ago he wanted to remove. Can people review this? To test it, you have
to run autoconf.
Are we staying at 16 as the default? I personally think we can
increase it to 32 with little penalty, and that we should increase
NAMEDATALEN to 64.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> > Personally, as a heavy user of PL/pgSQL procedures, I'm not sure you
> > need to increase the *default* number of parameters. Postgres just
> > needs to implement a parameter number change as part of a documented
> > command-line compile-time option, i.e. "--with-parameters=32".
>
> I would not object to providing such a configure option; it seems a
> reasonable thing to do. But the real debate here seems to be what
> the default should be. The ACS people would like their code to run
> on a "stock" Postgres installation, so they've been lobbying to change
> the default, not just to make it fractionally easier to build a
> non-default configuration.
>
> > Also, what is the practical maximum number of parameters?
>
> If you tried to make it more than perhaps 500, you'd start to see
> index-tuple-too-big failures in the pg_proc indexes. Realistically,
> though, I can't see people calling procedures with hundreds of
> positionally-specified parameters --- such code would be unmanageably
> error-prone.
>
> I was surprised that people were dissatisfied with 16 (it was 8 not very
> long ago...). Needing more strikes me as a symptom of either bad coding
> practices or missing features of other sorts.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
>
--
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
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
unknown_filename | text/plain | 4.5 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2002-04-16 02:59:19 | Re: Stumbled upon a time bug... |
Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2002-04-16 02:58:13 | Re: RFC: Generating useful names for foreign keys and checks |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2002-04-16 03:18:16 | Re: ANSI Compliant Inserts |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-04-16 02:46:23 | Re: ANSI Compliant Inserts |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Rod Taylor | 2002-04-16 03:19:45 | Re: [PATCHES] [SQL] 16 parameter limit |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2002-04-16 02:51:11 | Re: please advise on column data type |