Re: Functions have 32 args limt ???

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Ivar" <ivar(at)lumisoft(dot)ee>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Functions have 32 args limt ???
Date: 2003-08-28 16:11:42
Message-ID: 24253.1062087102@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

"Ivar" <ivar(at)lumisoft(dot)ee> writes:
> Are there any real pefrormance difference, what are actual difference(%),
> have somebody measured even it ?

You still haven't looked at the thread you were pointed to, have you?

There is another issue besides disk space and performance, which is that
functions with large numbers of positional parameters are just plain bad
style --- it's way too easy to introduce bugs by passing the parameters
in the wrong order. It's usually better to coalesce some of the
parameters into arrays or records. Our awareness of this fact keeps us
from wanting to expend lots of work or resources on making the standard
function argument limit larger.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ivar 2003-08-28 16:19:06 Re: Functions have 32 args limt ???
Previous Message Jeffrey Melloy 2003-08-28 16:09:56 Re: Books for PostgreSQL?