Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (unknown [192.204.191.242]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A82A4758DA for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 13:22:42 -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 g35ILfF26075; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 13:21:41 -0500 (EST) To: "Josh Berkus" Cc: Bruce Momjian , John Proctor , pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Re: 16 parameter limit In-reply-to: References: Comments: In-reply-to "Josh Berkus" message dated "Fri, 05 Apr 2002 08:30:08 -0800" Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 13:21:41 -0500 Message-ID: <26072.1018030901@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Archive-Number: 200204/70 X-Sequence-Number: 7335 "Josh Berkus" writes: > Personally, as a heavy user of PL/pgSQL procedures, I'm not sure you > need to increase the *default* number of parameters. Postgres just > needs to implement a parameter number change as part of a documented > command-line compile-time option, i.e. "--with-parameters=32". I would not object to providing such a configure option; it seems a reasonable thing to do. But the real debate here seems to be what the default should be. The ACS people would like their code to run on a "stock" Postgres installation, so they've been lobbying to change the default, not just to make it fractionally easier to build a non-default configuration. > Also, what is the practical maximum number of parameters? If you tried to make it more than perhaps 500, you'd start to see index-tuple-too-big failures in the pg_proc indexes. Realistically, though, I can't see people calling procedures with hundreds of positionally-specified parameters --- such code would be unmanageably error-prone. I was surprised that people were dissatisfied with 16 (it was 8 not very long ago...). Needing more strikes me as a symptom of either bad coding practices or missing features of other sorts. regards, tom lane