Re: Document parameter count limit - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David G. Johnston
Subject Re: Document parameter count limit
Date
Msg-id CAKFQuwaLU2VokC9w8-xLDXGmmuXN67e-dgMVxQrP=KF=Ef-kig@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Document parameter count limit  ("David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Document parameter count limit  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: Document parameter count limit  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 4:13 PM David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 4:08 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> Ah, I was confused.  I documented both in the attached patch.

The function one should have the same annotation as some others:

     <entry>can be increased by recompiling <productname>PostgreSQL</productname></entry>


I'd like to see a comment on the parameter count one too.

"Alternatives include using a temporary table or passing them in as a single array parameter."

About the only time this is likely to come up is with many parameters of the same type and meaning, pointing that out with the array option seems excessively wordy for the comment area.

Needs a comma: 65,535

Kinda think both should be tacked on to the end of the table.  I'd also put function arguments first so it appears under the compile time partition keys limit.


Cleanups for consistency:

Move "identifier length" after "partition keys" (before the new "function arguments")

Add commas to: 1,600 and 1,664 and 8,192

David J.

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "David G. Johnston"
Date:
Subject: Re: Document parameter count limit
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Document parameter count limit