Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (unknown [192.204.191.242])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBB16475892
	for <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>; Fri,  5 Apr 2002 18:34:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g35NXxF10985;
	Fri, 5 Apr 2002 18:33:59 -0500 (EST)
To: "Josh Berkus" <josh@agliodbs.com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>,
	John Proctor <jproctor@prium.net>, pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: 16 parameter limit 
In-reply-to: <web-1050933@davinci.ethosmedia.com> 
References: <web-1050933@davinci.ethosmedia.com>
Comments: In-reply-to "Josh Berkus" <josh@agliodbs.com>
	message dated "Fri, 05 Apr 2002 15:26:13 -0800"
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 18:33:59 -0500
Message-ID: <10982.1018049639@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Archive-Number: 200204/75
X-Sequence-Number: 7340

"Josh Berkus" <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> However, we also want to support users who are porting their PL/SQL
>  applications, which may not be easily translated into %rowtype
>  paramters.

Well, probably the $64 question there is: what is Oracle's limit on
number of parameters?

> What do you (personally) think about trying to get RH involved in
>  expanding PL/pgSQL's capabilites as a way fo targeting Oracle's users
>  for RHDB?

Seems like a good idea in the abstract ... but the hard question is what
are you willing to see *not* get done in order to put cycles on plpgsql.
And there's not a large supply of cycles.

			regards, tom lane