Re: FUNC_MAX_ARGS benchmarks - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: FUNC_MAX_ARGS benchmarks
Date
Msg-id 200208051654.g75GsZI04594@candle.pha.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: FUNC_MAX_ARGS benchmarks  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > I don't have trouble with 128, but other than standards compliance,  I
> > can't see many people getting >64 names.
> 
> One nice thing about 128 is you can basically forget about the weird
> truncation behavior on generated sequence names for serial columns
> --- "tablename_colname_seq" will be correct for essentially all
> practical cases.  At 64 you might still need to think about it.

Oh, good point.  Does anyone remember the performance hit for 64 vs 128
namedatalen?

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
853-3000+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
 


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: FUNC_MAX_ARGS benchmarks
Next
From: "J. R. Nield"
Date:
Subject: Re: PITR, checkpoint, and local relations