| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | Dan Ports <drkp(at)csail(dot)mit(dot)edu>, YAMAMOTO Takashi <yamt(at)mwd(dot)biglobe(dot)ne(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: SSI bug? |
| Date: | 2011-03-25 19:18:41 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTimgy7xgS0zdC0LiU=5zgsSGwKGTaPppeza7WAQb@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 5:57 PM, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
> "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
>
>> I'm still looking at whether it's sane to try to issue a warning
>> when an HTAB exceeds the number of entries declared as its
>> max_size when it was created.
>
> I think this does it.
>
> If nothing else, it might be instructive to use it while testing the
> SSI patch. Would it make any sense to slip this into 9.1, or should
> I add it to the first 9.2 CF?
I don't think it's too late to commit something like this, but I'm not
clear on whether we want it. Is this checking for what should be a
can't-happen case, or are these soft limits that we expect to be
exceeded from time to time?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-03-25 19:23:14 | Re: SSI bug? |
| Previous Message | Vaibhav Kaushal | 2011-03-25 19:12:21 | Re: When and how many times does ExecSetParamPlan executes? |