RE: [HACKERS] Problem with query length

From: "Ansley, Michael" <Michael(dot)Ansley(at)intec(dot)co(dot)za>
To: "'Natalya S(dot) Makushina'" <mak(at)rtsoft(dot)msk(dot)ru>, "'pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: RE: [HACKERS] Problem with query length
Date: 1999-08-18 07:55:21
Message-ID: 1BF7C7482189D211B03F00805F8527F70ED106@S-NATH-EXCH2
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi, all

I have found out what the problem is, although not (yet) the solution.

Executive summary:
------------------
The scan.l code is not flexing as intended. This means that, for most
production installations, the max token size is around 64kB.

Technical summary:
------------------
The problem is that scan.l is compiling to scan.c with YY_USES_REJECT being
defined. When YY_USES_REJECT is defined, the token buffer is NOT
expandable, and the parser will fail if expansion is attempted. However,
YY_USES_REJECT should not be defined, and I'm trying to work out why it is.
I have posted to the flex mailing list, and expect a reply within the next
day or so.

The bottom line:
------------------
The token limit seems to be effectively the size of YY_BUF_SIZE in scan.l,
until I submit a patch which should make it unlimited.

MikeA

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Natalya S. Makushina [mailto:mak(at)rtsoft(dot)msk(dot)ru]
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 1999 3:15 PM
>> To: 'pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org'
>> Subject: [HACKERS] Problem with query length
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> I have posted this mail to psql-general. But i didn't get
>> any answer yet.
>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> When i had tried to insert into text field text (length
>> about 4000 chars), the backend have crashed with status 139.
>> This error is happened when the query length ( SQL query) is
>> more than 4095 chars. I am using PostgreSQL 6.4.2 on Linux.
>>
>> My questions are:
>> 1. Is there problem with text field or with length of SQL query?
>> 2. Would postgresql have any limits for SQL query length?
>> I checked the archives but only found references to the 8K
>> limit. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
>> Thanks for help
>> Natalya Makushina
>> mak(at)rtsoft(dot)msk(dot)ru
>>
>>

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message C.S.Park 1999-08-18 08:43:27 [Q] pg_dump with large object & backend cache...
Previous Message Thomas Lockhart 1999-08-18 06:34:41 Re: [HACKERS] getting at the actual int4 value of an abstime