From: "Josh Berkus" <josh@agliodbs.com>
Subject: Re: 16 parameter limit 
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, "Josh Berkus" <josh@agliodbs.com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>,
	John Proctor <jproctor@prium.net>, pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 15:26:13 -0800
Message-ID: <web-1050933@davinci.ethosmedia.com>
In-Reply-To: <10867.1018048699@sss.pgh.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Tom,

> Yeah, but if we had slightly better support for rowtype parameters in
> plpgsql, you could do it with *three* parameters: session, user, and
> contents of record as a clients%rowtype structure.  And it'd probably
> be a lot easier to read, and more maintainable in the face of changes
> to the clients table structure.  This is why I say that needing lots
> of parameters may be a symptom of missing features rather than an
> indication that we ought to push up FUNC_MAX_ARGS.

You're right for my databases.  For that matter, better support for
 rowtype is on the laundry list of PL/SQL compatibility issues.

However, we also want to support users who are porting their PL/SQL
 applications, which may not be easily translated into %rowtype
 paramters.  As I've said before, all this requires is a good
 compile-time option; increasing the default is unnecessary.

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?

-Josh Berkus


______AGLIO DATABASE SOLUTIONS___________________________
                                       Josh Berkus
  Complete information technology      josh@agliodbs.com
   and data management solutions       (415) 565-7293
  for law firms, small businesses        fax 621-2533
    and non-profit organizations.      San Francisco