| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, 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: | 2002-08-11 00:22:38 |
| Message-ID: | 17505.1029025358@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Do we have agreement to increate FUNC_MAX_ARGS to 32?
I believe so.
> NAMEDATALEN will be 64 or 128 in 7.3. At this point, we better decide
> which one we prefer.
> The conservative approach would be to go for 64 and perhaps increase it
> again in 7.4 after we get feedback and real-world usage. If we go to
> 128, we will have trouble decreasing it if there are performance
> problems.
It seems fairly clear to me that there *are* performance problems,
at least in some scenarios. I think we should go to 64. There doesn't
seem to be a lot of real-world demand for more than that, despite what
the spec says ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joe Conway | 2002-08-11 01:20:37 | Re: FUNC_MAX_ARGS benchmarks |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-08-10 23:21:17 | Re: FUNC_MAX_ARGS benchmarks |