On Tue, 2002-04-16 at 07:01, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > How about this: We store the first 16 parameters in some fixed array for
> > fast access like now, and when you have more than 16 then 17 and beyond
> > get stored in some variable array in pg_proc.
>
Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > How about this: We store the first 16 parameters in some fixed array for
> > fast access like now, and when you have more than 16 then 17 and beyond
> > get stored in some variable array in pg_proc.
>
> <> What's this going to c
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How about this: We store the first 16 parameters in some fixed array for
> fast access like now, and when you have more than 16 then 17 and beyond
> get stored in some variable array in pg_proc.
<> What's this going to cost us in the function looku
Tom Lane writes:
> Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > My vote is to set the default # of function args to some
> > reasonable default (32 sounds good), and leave it at that.
>
> Bear in mind that s/32/16/ gives you the exact state of the discussion
> when we raised the limit from 8 to 16
> > Anyway, how does one measure the perfomance impact of such a change?
> > By merely changing the constant definition, or also by actually using
> > long identifiers? I can do that if it's of any help, for various values
> > perhaps.
>
> I think I would measure disk size change in a newly create
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> (Tom Lane says both SQL92 and SQL99 specify 128 as the maximun
> identifier length)
>
> Anyway, how does one measure the perfomance impact of such a change?
> By merely changing the constant definition, or also by actually using
> long identifiers? I can do that if it's of
On Mon, 15 Apr 2002 23:34:04 -0400
"Alvaro Herrera" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> En Mon, 15 Apr 2002 23:19:45 -0400
> "Rod Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
>
> > On the note of NAMEDATALEN, a view in the INFORMATION_SCHEMA
> > definition is exactly 2 characters over the current limit.
> >
>
En Mon, 15 Apr 2002 23:19:45 -0400
"Rod Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
> On the note of NAMEDATALEN, a view in the INFORMATION_SCHEMA
> definition is exactly 2 characters over the current limit.
>
> ADMINISTRABLE_ROLE_AUTHORIZATIONS
>
> Not that it's a great reason, but it isn't a bad on
On the note of NAMEDATALEN, a view in the INFORMATION_SCHEMA
definition is exactly 2 characters over the current limit.
ADMINISTRABLE_ROLE_AUTHORIZATIONS
Not that it's a great reason, but it isn't a bad one for increasing
the limit ;)
--
Rod Taylor
> Are we staying at 16 as the default? I pe
