Re: Query generates infinite loop

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Richard Wesley <richard(at)duckdblabs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Query generates infinite loop
Date: 2022-05-09 16:42:44
Message-ID: 3817754.1652114564@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers

Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> The infinite-upper-bound-withlimit-pushdown counterexample makes sense, but
> seems like we're using generate_series() only because we lack a function
> that generates a series of N elements, without a specified upper bound,
> something like

> generate_finite_series( start, step, num_elements )

Yeah, that could be a reasonable thing to add.

> And if we did that, I'd lobby that we have one that takes dates as well as
> one that takes timestamps, because that was my reason for starting the
> thread above.

Less sure about that. ISTM the reason that the previous proposal failed
was that it introduced too much ambiguity about how to resolve
unknown-type arguments. Wouldn't the same problems arise here?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jonathan S. Katz 2022-05-09 17:20:23 Re: BUG #17477: A crash bug in transformValuesClause()
Previous Message Tom Lane 2022-05-09 16:32:23 Re: BUG #17478: Missing documents in the index after CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY (but existing in the table)

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Euler Taveira 2022-05-09 18:44:45 Re: Privileges on PUBLICATION
Previous Message Justin Pryzby 2022-05-09 15:58:15 Re: postgres_fdw "parallel_commit" docs