| From: | Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet(at)singh(dot)im> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Mailing Lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Slony Hackers <slony1-hackers(at)lists(dot)slony(dot)info> |
| Subject: | Re: Processing long AND/OR lists |
| Date: | 2013-05-27 14:32:49 |
| Message-ID: | CAFNqd5WrmUh_dPR_o69hnLj7zq+mXbCdhKBGuZHdbgMBqq=q8Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 1:42 AM, Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet(at)singh(dot)im> wrote:
>
>
>> Joking about "640K" aside, it doesn't seem reasonable to expect a truly
>> enormous query as is generated by the broken forms of this logic to turn
>> out happily. I'd rather fix Slony (as done in the above patch).
>>
>
> Yes, by all means, fix the application, but that doesn't preclude the
> argument that the database should be a bit more smarter and efficient,
> especially if it is easy to do.
Agreed, it seems like a fine idea to have the database support such
queries, as this eases coping with applications that might be more
difficult to get fixed. (I can't see too many users generating such
enormous queries by hand! :-))
--
When confronted by a difficult problem, solve it by reducing it to the
question, "How would the Lone Ranger handle this?"
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-05-27 14:36:10 | Re: Planning incompatibilities for Postgres 10.0 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-05-27 14:31:26 | Re: [HACKERS] COPY .... (FORMAT binary) syntax doesn't work |