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

Re: IN question

From: "Neil Conway" <nrc(at)cs(dot)berkeley(dot)edu>
To: "Jeff Davis" <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
Cc: "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "Steve Atkins" <steve(at)blighty(dot)com>, "SF PostgreSQL" <sfpug(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: IN question
Date: 2008-12-11 00:11:32
Message-ID: b4e5ce320812101611x3b653f8cq9d758b52ddadbadf@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: sfpug
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 3:39 PM, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
> And if it's additional memory, it should probably be a different GUC.

Measuring the limit in bytes makes no sense, anyway.

> If there is an explicit limit, which sounds reasonable, I think it's
> good to separate parsing limits from executor limits.

IMHO this would not be very useful: should we also reject queries with
more than k WHERE clauses, FROM elements, or string literals longer
than k bytes? I think the time would be better spent working on
developing proper support for resource limits / quotas.

Neil

In response to

Responses

sfpug by date

Next:From: Jeff DavisDate: 2008-12-11 01:01:40
Subject: Re: IN question
Previous:From: Jeff DavisDate: 2008-12-10 23:44:45
Subject: Re: IN question

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