| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us, mail(at)joeconway(dot)com, lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org, nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: FUNC_MAX_ARGS benchmarks |
| Date: | 2002-08-06 02:54:39 |
| Message-ID: | 4566.1028602479@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
>> I don't have trouble with 128, but other than standards compliance, I
>> can't see many people getting >64 names.
> Don't forget that 128 is for *bytes*, not for characters(this is still
> ture with 7.3). In CJK(Chinese, Japanese and Korean) single character
> can eat up to 3 bytes if the encoding is utf-8.
True, but in those languages a typical name would be many fewer
characters than it is in Western alphabets, no? I'd guess (with
no evidence though) that the effect would more or less cancel out.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-08-06 02:56:37 | Re: New manual chapters |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-08-06 02:46:05 | Re: PITR, checkpoint, and local relations |