On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 11:04:47PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 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
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 4:08 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > Bruce Momjian wr
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
> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 4:08 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > Ah, I was confused. I documented both in the attached patch.
>
"David G. Johnston" writes:
> Cleanups for consistency:
> Move "identifier length" after "partition keys" (before the new "function
> arguments")
Yeah, the existing ordering of this table seems quite random.
That would help some, by separating items having to do with
database/table size from SQL
On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 4:13 PM David G. Johnston <
david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 4:08 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> Bruce Momjian writes:
>> > Ah, I was confused. I documented both in the attached patch.
>>
>> The function one should have the same annotation as some ot
On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 4:08 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > Ah, I was confused. I documented both in the attached patch.
>
> The function one should have the same annotation as some others:
>
> can be increased by recompiling
> PostgreSQL
>
>
I'd like to see a comment on th
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Ah, I was confused. I documented both in the attached patch.
The function one should have the same annotation as some others:
can be increased by recompiling
PostgreSQL
regards, tom lane
On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 06:56:40PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > Here is a patch to add this.
>
> "function arguments" seems like a completely wrong description
> (and if we do want to document that limit, it's 100).
>
> "query parameters" would work, perhaps.
Ah, I was con
On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 3:51 PM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 02:33:27PM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 12:35:59PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 11:47 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> > >
> > > > Bruce Momjian writes:
> > > > > Does
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Here is a patch to add this.
"function arguments" seems like a completely wrong description
(and if we do want to document that limit, it's 100).
"query parameters" would work, perhaps.
regards, tom lane
On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 02:33:27PM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 12:35:59PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 11:47 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > > Bruce Momjian writes:
> > > > Does this come up enough to document it? I assume the error message th
On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 12:35:59PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 11:47 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > Bruce Momjian writes:
> > > Does this come up enough to document it? I assume the error message the
> > > user receives is clear.
> >
> > Looks like you get
> >
> > if
"David G. Johnston" writes:
> I do believe that people who want to use a large parameter list likely have
> that question in the back of their mind, and looking at a page called
> "System Limits" is at least plausibly something they would do. Since they
> are really caring about parse-bind-execut
On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 11:47 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > Does this come up enough to document it? I assume the error message the
> > user receives is clear.
>
> Looks like you get
>
> if (nParams < 0 || nParams > PQ_QUERY_PARAM_MAX_LIMIT)
> {
> libpq_append_c
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Does this come up enough to document it? I assume the error message the
> user receives is clear.
Looks like you get
if (nParams < 0 || nParams > PQ_QUERY_PARAM_MAX_LIMIT)
{
libpq_append_conn_error(conn, "number of parameters must be between 0
and %d",
On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 11:01:18AM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 10:58 AM Corey Huinker
> wrote:
>
>
> + if you are reading this prepatorily, please redesign your
> query to use temporary tables or arrays
>
>
> I agree with the documentation
On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 10:58 AM Corey Huinker
wrote:
>
>> +if you are reading this prepatorily, please redesign your
>> query to use temporary tables or arrays
>>
>
> I agree with the documentation of this parameter.
> I agree with dissuading anyone from attempting to change it
> The wording
>
>
> +if you are reading this prepatorily, please redesign your
> query to use temporary tables or arrays
>
I agree with the documentation of this parameter.
I agree with dissuading anyone from attempting to change it
The wording is bordering on snark (however well deserved) and I think the
v
Inspired by a recent posting on Slack...
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/limits.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/limits.sgml
index d5b2b627dd..5d68eef093 100644
--- a/doc/src/sgml/limits.sgml
+++ b/doc/src/sgml/limits.sgml
@@ -97,6 +97,13 @@
32
can be increased by recompiling
PostgreSQL
+
+
+pa
18 matches
Mail list logo
