| From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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: | 2002-08-04 06:58:59 |
| Message-ID: | 3D4CD0B3.9050301@joeconway.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>>I'm convinced by Joe's numbers that FUNC_MAX_ARGS = 32 shouldn't hurt
>>too much. But have we done equivalent checks on NAMEDATALEN? In
>>particular, do we know what it does to the size of template1?
> No, I thought we saw the number, was 30%? No, we did a test for 64.
> Can someone get us that number for 128?
>
I'll do 32, 64, and 128 and report back on template1 size.
Joe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2002-08-04 07:01:54 | Re: cvs changes and broken links |
| Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2002-08-04 06:53:46 | Re: anonymous composite types for Table Functions (aka |