| 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 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hannu Krosing | 2008-05-21 17:28:12 | Re: proposal: table functions and plpgsql |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2008-05-21 16:48:50 | Re: [HACKERS] WITH RECURSIVE patch V0.1 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2008-05-21 20:30:28 | \d+ should display the storage options for columns |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2008-05-21 16:48:50 | Re: [HACKERS] WITH RECURSIVE patch V0.1 |