Re: FUNC_MAX_ARGS benchmarks

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(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: 2002-08-04 02:54:12
Message-ID: 200208040254.g742sC124330@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > OK, time to get moving folks. Looks like the increase in the function
> > args to 32 and the NAMEDATALEN to 128 has been sufficiently tested.
>
> I'm convinced by Joe's numbers that FUNC_MAX_ARGS = 32 shouldn't hurt
> too much. But have we done equivalent checks on NAMEDATALEN? In
> particular, do we know what it does to the size of template1?

No, I thought we saw the number, was 30%? No, we did a test for 64.
Can someone get us that number for 128?

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gavin Sherry 2002-08-04 02:55:55 Re: CLUSTER and indisclustered
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2002-08-04 02:52:35 Re: PITR, checkpoint, and local relations