Gregory Stark wrote:
Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Couldn't we just have it pay attention to the existing
max_stack_depth?
Recursive query does not consume stack. The server enters an infinite
loop without consuming stack. Stack-depth error does not happen.
Hans-Juergen Schoenig wrote:
Gregory Stark wrote:
Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
i don't think statement_timeout is a good idea at all.
it is not deterministic. depending on the load on the server some
queries will execute while others fail.
a separate GUC is needed.
I
[ catching up on back email ]
Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yoshiyuki Asaba [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Recursive query does not consume stack. The server enters an infinite
loop without consuming stack. Stack-depth error does not happen.
We could have a separate guc variable which
On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 05:08:51AM -0700, David Fetter wrote:
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 08:51:29PM +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
WITH RECURSIVE patch V0.1
Please find updated patch with bug fixes from Yoshiyuki Asaba and
Michael Meskes. Any mistakes in it are mine. :)
As promised, the mistakes
Greg Sabino Mullane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Documentation patch by Kevin L. McBride explaining LOCK_DEBUG options
in detail.
Should this stuff really go into the SGML documentation, when these
options will certainly never be enabled anywhere except in developers'
private builds? A few lines
