Re: Document parameter count limit

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.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

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 attached.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        https://momjian.us
  EDB                                      https://enterprisedb.com

  Only you can decide what is important to you.