| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Paul A Jungwirth <pj(at)illuminatedcomputing(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SQL:2011 Application Time Update & Delete |
| Date: | 2026-04-20 16:03:30 |
| Message-ID: | 270216.1776701010@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Paul A Jungwirth <pj(at)illuminatedcomputing(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 7:33 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> But speaking of infinite loops, should this one contain a
>> CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS call? It's hard to conceive of a case where
>> the value would be broken down finely enough for that to be a
>> problem, but ...
> A rangetype could only loop 0-2 times; a multirange 0-1. So I don't
> think we need it. Eventually user-defined types could loop more, but a
> design that inserts many records every time you change something seems
> like a bad idea. Maybe I would add it anyway just out of caution, but
> I suspect it's excessive.
Fair enough. It's quite likely that we'd hit at least one CFI down
inside the insertion anyway.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2026-04-20 16:12:07 | Re: First draft of PG 19 release notes |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2026-04-20 16:01:42 | Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently] |