Re: FUNC_MAX_ARGS benchmarks

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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: 2002-08-05 19:40:30
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.44.0208052139440.927-100000@localhost.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Joe Conway writes:

> I'd rather be spec compliant. That way nobody has a good basis for
> complaining ;-)

How long until someone figures out that to be spec-compliant you need
NAMEDATALEN 129? ;-)

--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2002-08-05 21:31:03 Re: FUNC_MAX_ARGS benchmarks
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2002-08-05 19:22:23 Re: Build errors with current CVS