Subject: Document the limit on the number of parameters

From: PG Doc comments form <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 13:25:08 +0000

The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:

Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/static/sql-prepare.html
Description:

The backend protocol limits the number of parameters that can be passed for
a prepared statement to 32767 (2 byte signed integer).

As that is something that is independent of the client library, I think this
should be documented in the user facing manual for the Postgres server
somewhere. 

I did not find anything in the chapter about PREPARE
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/sql-prepare.html or about the
backend protocol:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/protocol.html nor on the FAQ
page: https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/FAQ

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2018 17:58:22 -0400

> page: https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/FAQ

Uh, is this something people will care about?

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <[email-masked]>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I.  As I am, so you will be. +
+                      Ancient Roman grave inscription +

---

From: Stephen Frost <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2018 22:06:55 -0400

Greetings,

> Uh, is this something people will care about?

Seems like a limitation in the backend protocol should probably be
documented in the backend protocol section of the docs..

Thanks!

Stephen

---

From: Tom Lane <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2018 22:59:04 -0400

> documented in the backend protocol section of the docs..

It is: the definition of the Bind message format says that the parameter
count is an int16.

The question is whether this deserves to be cross-referenced from
elsewhere.  I agree with Bruce that it seems unlikely to be helpful.

			regards, tom lane

---

From: Stephen Frost <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2018 23:01:49 -0400

Greetings Tom,

> elsewhere.  I agree with Bruce that it seems unlikely to be helpful.

Ah, I read the original poster as saying that it wasn't in the protocol
docs.  If it's there already then I agree, that's sufficient.

Thanks!

Stephen