| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | cnliou(at)eurosport(dot)com, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pl/pgsql Composite Parameter Question |
| Date: | 2002-03-08 01:18:31 |
| Message-ID: | 25623.1015550311@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Looks like a bug to me :-(. Unfortunately, there's no time to do
>> anything about it for 7.2. In the meantime, the 16-parameter limit
>> is by no means graven in stone; perhaps you could cope for awhile
>> by recompiling with a larger FUNC_MAX_ARGS.
> Tom, can you summarize the issue here?
The issue for our TODO is that plpgsql doesn't work very well with
composite (rowtype) parameters.
> Our 16-param limit is for both
> old and new-style functions? Did we agree to increase this, perhaps to
> 24 or 32. Did we decide?
I don't recall any consensus in favor of changing the default value of
FUNC_MAX_ARGS. It's already twice what it used to be.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-03-08 01:24:36 | Re: pl/pgsql Composite Parameter Question |
| Previous Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2002-03-08 01:17:50 | Re: April 1 |