From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Document parameter count limit |
Date: | 2023-10-26 23:13:07 |
Message-ID: | CAKFQuwZ5MjVFnH7TT+UsJUvft3N2goT0SEMzDNKnuS1y2gh38Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 4:08 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > Ah, I was confused. I documented both in the attached patch.
>
> The function one should have the same annotation as some others:
>
> <entry>can be increased by recompiling
> <productname>PostgreSQL</productname></entry>
>
>
I'd like to see a comment on the parameter count one too.
"Alternatives include using a temporary table or passing them in as a
single array parameter."
About the only time this is likely to come up is with many parameters of
the same type and meaning, pointing that out with the array option seems
excessively wordy for the comment area.
Needs a comma: 65,535
Kinda think both should be tacked on to the end of the table. I'd also put
function arguments first so it appears under the compile time partition
keys limit.
David J.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2023-10-26 23:17:19 | Re: Document parameter count limit |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2023-10-26 23:08:01 | Re: Document parameter count limit |