Gregory Stark wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
>>>>> Couldn't we just have it pay attention to the existing
>>>> 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
>>> levels of recursive iterations. That might be a useful feature for DBAs that
>>> want to limit their users from issuing an infinite query.
>> statement_timeout :)
> Good point.
> Though it occurs to me that if you set FETCH_COUNT in psql (or do the
> equivalent in your code ) statement_timeout becomes much less useful.
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.
Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH
PostgreSQL Solutions and Support
Gröhrmühlgasse 26, A-2700 Wiener Neustadt
Tel: +43/1/205 10 35 / 340
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2008-05-25 12:56:49|
|Subject: Re: DROP ROLE dependency tracking ...|
|Previous:||From: Stephen R. van den Berg||Date: 2008-05-25 08:21:33|
|Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Posible planner improvement?|
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Joshua D. Drake||Date: 2008-05-25 18:30:50|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] WITH RECURSIVE patch V0.1|
|Previous:||From: Dickson S. Guedes||Date: 2008-05-24 14:09:47|
|Subject: Re: TODO item: Have psql show current values for a sequence|