Re: [HACKERS] WITH RECURSIVE patch V0.1

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Hans-Juergen Schoenig <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at>
Cc: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Yoshiyuki Asaba <y-asaba(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, david(at)fetter(dot)org, zb(at)cybertec(dot)at, ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] WITH RECURSIVE patch V0.1
Date: 2008-05-25 18:30:50
Message-ID: 4839B05A.2000409@commandprompt.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Hans-Juergen Schoenig wrote:
> Gregory Stark wrote:
>> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:

>>
>
> i don't think statement_timeout is a good idea at all.
> it is not deterministic. depending on the load on the server some
> queries will execute while others fail.
> a separate GUC is needed.

I don't think we need to add clutter to GUC for something that exists to
handle the problem at hand. If our real concern is server utilization
based on user or query resources we need to look at an overall solution
for that issue not a one off for a single feature.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2008-05-25 18:33:34 Re: [HACKERS] WITH RECURSIVE patch V0.1
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-05-25 17:39:50 Re: \df displaying volatility

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2008-05-25 18:33:34 Re: [HACKERS] WITH RECURSIVE patch V0.1
Previous Message Hans-Juergen Schoenig 2008-05-25 12:27:46 Re: [HACKERS] WITH RECURSIVE patch V0.1