Tom,
I think this patch is plenty complicated enough without adding useless
restrictive options.
+1 for no additonal GUC options.
--Josh Berkus
--
Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (pgsql-patches@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
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 05:01:11AM +0900, Yoshiyuki Asaba wrote:
Hi,
From: David Fetter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] WITH RECURSIVE patch V0.1
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 11:26:30 -0700
Where is the new patch?
I will create the revised patch on June. This is a patch for this
Hi,
From: David Fetter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] WITH RECURSIVE patch V0.1
Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 04:36:30 -0700
I think it's the other way around. The server should not emit
infinite number of records.
How about adding new GUC parameter max_recursive_call
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.
We could have a separate guc variable which limits the maximum number of
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.
We could have a separate guc
Merlin Moncure wrote:
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 5:22 PM, Zoltan Boszormenyi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can we get the rows in tree order, please? I.e. something like this:
Is ordering by tree order defined in the standard when no explicit
order is given? If not, it probably returns them
