Received: from davinci.ethosmedia.com (davinci.ethosmedia.com [209.10.40.250])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7467C475949
	for <pgsql-patches@postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 15 Apr 2002 23:25:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [63.195.55.98] (account <josh@agliodbs.com>)
	by davinci.ethosmedia.com (CommuniGate Pro WebUser 3.5.9)
	with HTTP id 1371946; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 20:25:20 -0700
From: "Josh Berkus" <josh@agliodbs.com>
Subject: Re: [SQL] 16 parameter limit
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>,
	Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, John Proctor <jproctor@prium.net>,
	PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches@postgresql.org>
X-Mailer: CommuniGate Pro Web Mailer v.3.5.9
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 20:25:20 -0700
Message-ID: <web-1371946@davinci.ethosmedia.com>
In-Reply-To: <200204160258.g3G2wpG01075@candle.pha.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Archive-Number: 200204/172
X-Sequence-Number: 3687

Bruce,

> The following patch adds --maxindfuncparams to configure to allow you
> to
> more easily set the maximum number of function parameters and columns
> in an index.  (Can someone come up with a better name?)

How about simply --max_params ?

> Are we staying at 16 as the default?   I personally think we can
> increase it to 32 with little penalty, 

I'd vote for that.  But then, you knew that.  John Proctor wants 128.

>and that we should increase
> NAMEDATALEN to 64.

I don't even know that is.  

-Josh