Re: Document parameter count limit

On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 04:17:19PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 4:13 PM David G. Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> Cleanups for consistency:
>
> Move "identifier length" after "partition keys" (before the new "function
> arguments")
>
> Add commas to: 1,600 and 1,664 and 8,192

Okay, I made all the suggested changes in ordering and adding commas,
plus the text about the ability to change function arguments via
recompiling.

I didn't put commas in 8192 since that is a power-of-two and kind of a
magic number used in many places.

I am not sure where to put text about using arrays to handle many
function arguments. I just don't see it fitting in the table, or the
paragraph below the table.

Patch attached.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com

Only you can decide what is important to you.