Re: Functions have 32 args limt ???

> Did you even bother to look at the thread I referred to?
What thread ?
You just gave some notes how to come over this, but I think I'll never use
modified source
and not standard release server.

If you see my example of my functions (trying to move ms sql to postgre, all
goes well except it),
is them really so dummy or bad design.

> greater than 32 arguments why they should suffer a performance hit just
> because you do.
Are there any real pefrormance difference, what are actual difference(%),
have somebody measured even it ?

"Joe Conway" <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> wrote in message
news:3F4E2126(dot)6010902(at)joeconway(dot)com(dot)(dot)(dot)
> Ivar wrote:
> > I don't see why default is so small.
> >
>
> Did you even bother to look at the thread I referred to?
>
> There was a lengthy discussion on the pros and cons of various default
> settings, and the consensus of the community was 32. If you'd like to
> make a cogent argument for why it ought to be higher, by all means do
> so. But you'll have to convince quite a few people who have no need for
> greater than 32 arguments why they should suffer a performance hit just
> because you do.
>
> Joe
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
>