Re: FUNC_MAX_ARGS benchmarks

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: 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 16:25:37
Message-ID: 3839.1028564737@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2002-08-05 16:28:03 Re: anonymous composite types for Table Functions (aka
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2002-08-05 16:25:35 Re: anonymous composite types for Table Functions (aka