| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dhanaraj M <Dhanaraj(dot)M(at)Sun(dot)COM>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Patch for - Change FETCH/MOVE to use int8 |
| Date: | 2006-08-13 23:12:07 |
| Message-ID: | 8630.1155510727@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> I don't think this is the right approach. Maybe it would be reasonable
> to add another arm to the %union instead, not sure. The problem is the
> amount of ugly casts you have to use below. The scanner code seems to
> think that a constant larger than the biggest int4 should be treated as
> float, so I'm not sure why this would work anyway.
I'm not sure that I see the point of this at all. ISTM the entire
reason for using a cursor is that you're going to fetch the results
in bite-size pieces. I don't see the current Postgres source code
surviving into the era where >2G rows is considered bite-size ;-)
I thought the int8-LIMIT patch was equally pointless, btw, but at
least it was not very invasive. This one is not passing the minimum
usefulness-to-ugliness ratio for me.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2006-08-13 23:37:13 | Re: [PATCHES] Adding fulldisjunctions to the contrib |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-08-13 23:01:13 | Re: segfault on rollback |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2006-08-13 23:37:13 | Re: [PATCHES] Adding fulldisjunctions to the contrib |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-08-13 22:47:37 | Re: [PATCHES] Adding fulldisjunctions to the contrib |