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

Re: WIP: pl/pgsql cleanup

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: WIP: pl/pgsql cleanup
Date: 2005-02-08 21:45:24
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-patches
Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> BTW, both of our fixes suffer from the deficiency that they will
> actually reject input one variable too early: we disallow a SQL
> statement with 1023 variables that we strictly speaking could store.

Right.  I thought about putting the overflow checks inside the switches
so that they wouldn't trigger on the case where we don't need another
variable ... but it doesn't seem worth the extra code to me either.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Neil ConwayDate: 2005-02-09 04:56:33
Subject: memory leak in ALTER TABLE
Previous:From: Neil ConwayDate: 2005-02-08 21:41:50
Subject: Re: WIP: pl/pgsql cleanup

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group