On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 11:04:47PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 04:17:19PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 4:13 PM David G. Johnston > > <david.g.johns...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 4:08 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > > > Bruce Momjian <br...@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 > > Okay, I made all the suggested changes in ordering and adding commas, > plus the text about the ability to change function arguments via > recompiling. > > I didn't put commas in 8192 since that is a power-of-two and kind of a > magic number used in many places. > > I am not sure where to put text about using arrays to handle many > function arguments. I just don't see it fitting in the table, or the > paragraph below the table.
Patch applied back to Postgres 12. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EDB https://enterprisedb.com Only you can decide what is important to you.
