Re: FUNC_MAX_ARGS benchmarks

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: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org>, Neil Conway <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: FUNC_MAX_ARGS benchmarks
Date: 2002-08-05 16:54:35
Message-ID: 200208051654.g75GsZI04594@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > I don't have trouble with 128, but other than standards compliance, I
> > can't see many people getting >64 names.
>
> One nice thing about 128 is you can basically forget about the weird
> truncation behavior on generated sequence names for serial columns
> --- "tablename_colname_seq" will be correct for essentially all
> practical cases. At 64 you might still need to think about it.

Oh, good point. Does anyone remember the performance hit for 64 vs 128
namedatalen?

--
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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message J. R. Nield 2002-08-05 16:57:58 Re: PITR, checkpoint, and local relations
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2002-08-05 16:28:03 Re: anonymous composite types for Table Functions (aka