On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 at 07:08, Dave Cramer <davecramer@postgres.rocks> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 31 May 2022 at 14:51, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>
>> Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
>> > I think it's reasonable to have two adjacent rows in the table for these
>> > two closely related things, but rather than "columns per tuple" I would
>> > label the second one "columns in a result set". This is easy enough to
>> > understand and to differentiate from the other limit.
>>
>> OK, with that wording it's probably clear enough.
> Reworded patch attached
I see the patch does not have the same text as what was proposed and
seconded above. My personal preferences would be "result set
columns", but "columns in a result set" seems fine too.
I've adjusted the patch to use the wording proposed by Alvaro. See attached.
I will push this shortly.
David
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/limits.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/limits.sgml
index 7713ff7177..d5b2b627dd 100644
--- a/doc/src/sgml/limits.sgml
+++ b/doc/src/sgml/limits.sgml
@@ -62,6 +62,12 @@
below</entry>
</row>
+ <row>
+ <entry>columns in a result set</entry>
+ <entry>1664</entry>
+ <entry></entry>
+ </row>
+
<row>
<entry>field size</entry>
<entry>1 GB</entry>
