Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> * Return the count of tuples processed, probably as a long since that's
>> what the input limit-count is. There are potential overflow issues with
>> this definition on 32-bit machines, though that's not going to affect
>> functions.c since it passes a limit of 1 tuple in the cases where it
>> needs to examine the result, and no one else presently cares at all.
>> But the possibility of overflow might limit the usefulness of this
>> definition in other scenarios.
> And what would that mean for a cursor which was read forward and backward?
Nothing really; the cursor code does its own counting.
Hmm ... now that I look at it, there is already a counter
estate->es_processed, so there's really no reason for ExecutorRun to
return anything at all.
es_processed is only uint32, so someday we might want to widen it, but
I think it's not important in current usage. In any case that'd be
orthogonal to this discussion.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Kevin Grittner||Date: 2008-10-31 17:39:50|
|Subject: Re: Enabling archive_mode without restart|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2008-10-31 17:37:00|
|Subject: Re: pre-MED|