Received: from cm-lcon-46-187.cm.vtr.net (cm-lcon-46-187.cm.vtr.net [200.83.46.187]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1378475AA1 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 23:34:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cm-lcon-46-187.cm.vtr.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by cm-lcon-46-187.cm.vtr.net (Postfix) with SMTP id A08D423C; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 23:34:04 -0400 (CLT) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 23:34:04 -0400 From: Alvaro Herrera To: "Rod Taylor" Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [PATCHES] [SQL] 16 parameter limit Message-Id: <20020415233404.57d7fc01.alvherre@atentus.com> In-Reply-To: <0a9401c1e4f5$8f2ac5b0$8001a8c0@jester> References: <200204160258.g3G2wpG01075@candle.pha.pa.us> <0a9401c1e4f5$8f2ac5b0$8001a8c0@jester> Organization: Atentus.com X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.7.4 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archive-Number: 200204/767 X-Sequence-Number: 21431 En Mon, 15 Apr 2002 23:19:45 -0400 "Rod Taylor" 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 () "Las cosas son buenas o malas segun las hace nuestra opinion" (Lisias)