Re: Re: Should we have an optional limit on the recursion depth of recursive CTEs?

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Re: Should we have an optional limit on the recursion depth of recursive CTEs?
Date: 2011-08-16 08:56:54
Message-ID: CABUevEzCqAzNYUN7ZNmGvrJjqemA6sdUn5r4GokmzxrszLePzw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 23:49, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 9:31 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> ... and that would be a seriously bad API.  There are not SUSET
>> restrictions on other resources such as work_mem.  Why do we need
>> one for this?
>
> I think a better analogy would be imposing a maximum number of rows a
> query can output. That might be a sane thing to have for some
> circumstances but it's not useful in general.

Uh. You mean like LIMIT, which we already have?

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2011-08-16 09:24:13 pgsql: Fix bogus comment that claimed that the new BACKUP METHOD line i
Previous Message Fujii Masao 2011-08-16 08:55:49 Some problems about cascading replication