Re: FUNC_MAX_ARGS benchmarks

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: 2002-08-04 02:15:26
Message-ID: 6202.1028427326@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:
> 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?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2002-08-04 02:19:36 Re: getpid() function
Previous Message Tom Lane 2002-08-04 02:01:12 Re: PITR, checkpoint, and local relations