From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Cc: Neil Conway <nconway@klamath.dyndns.org>
Cc: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Cc: josh@agliodbs.com, jproctor@prium.net, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] [SQL] 16 parameter limit
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 01:01:33 -0400
Message-ID: <9406.1018933293@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0204160032190.834-100000@peter.localdomain>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0204160032190.834-100000@peter.localdomain>
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> How about this: We store the first 16 parameters in some fixed array for
> fast access like now, and when you have more than 16 then 17 and beyond
> get stored in some variable array in pg_proc.
<<itch>> What's this going to cost us in the function lookup code paths?
If we can do it with little or no performance cost (at least for the
"normal case" of fewer-than-N parameters) then I'm all ears.
regards, tom lane
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: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, peter_e@gmx.net, nconway@klamath.dyndns.org, chriskl@familyhealth.com.au, pgman@candle.pha.pa.us, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] [SQL] 16 parameter limit
In-Reply-To: <9406.1018933293@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* 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