Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] WITH RECURSIVE patch V0.1

From: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: "Yoshiyuki Asaba" <y-asaba(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>, <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] WITH RECURSIVE patch V0.1
Date: 2008-05-21 17:04:34
Message-ID: 87hccroafx.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:

>> >> Couldn't we just have it pay attention to the existing
>> >> max_stack_depth?
>> >
>> > 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.

-- 
  Gregory Stark
  EnterpriseDB          http://www.enterprisedb.com
  Ask me about EnterpriseDB's On-Demand Production Tuning

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Hannu KrosingDate: 2008-05-21 17:28:12
Subject: Re: proposal: table functions and plpgsql
Previous:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2008-05-21 16:48:50
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] WITH RECURSIVE patch V0.1

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Gregory StarkDate: 2008-05-21 20:30:28
Subject: \d+ should display the storage options for columns
Previous:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2008-05-21 16:48:50
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] WITH RECURSIVE patch V0.1

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group