From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@atentus.com>
To: Rod Taylor <rbt@zort.ca>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] [SQL] 16 parameter limit
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 23:34:04 -0400
Message-ID: <20020415233404.57d7fc01.alvherre@atentus.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0a9401c1e4f5$8f2ac5b0$8001a8c0@jester>
References: <200204160258.g3G2wpG01075@candle.pha.pa.us>
<0a9401c1e4f5$8f2ac5b0$8001a8c0@jester>
En Mon, 15 Apr 2002 23:19:45 -0400
"Rod Taylor" <rbt@zort.ca> 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 one for increasing
> the limit ;)
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2002-01/msg00939.php
(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 any help, for various values
perhaps.
--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]atentus.com>)
"Las cosas son buenas o malas segun las hace nuestra opinion" (Lisias)
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: alvherre@atentus.com, rbt@zort.ca, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] [SQL] 16 parameter limit
In-Reply-To: <20020415233404.57d7fc01.alvherre@atentus.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox