| From: | Rafia Sabih <rafia(dot)pghackers(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: postgres_fdw: Emit message when batch_size is reduced |
| Date: | 2026-06-09 11:38:24 |
| Message-ID: | CA+FpmFcrCkJb+-0tADe_eMH_vTP7G11SXbmFaryypsk_EDQN9g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 5 Jun 2026 at 19:52, Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>>>> - In the test case, choosing a batch_size > PQ_QUERY_PARAM_MAX_LIMIT
>>>> seems a bit artificial, in that it's a value that can't work for any query
>>>> with parameters, and someone might add sanity checks to batch_size in
>>>> option.c, which would in turn invalidate the test case. A test case with a
>>>> 2-column table should be able to get the same effect any batch_size greater
>>>> than half of 65535, yes?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> Thinking some more on this part, I think it would be worthwhile to check
> on assignments to batch_size, and issue a NOTICE or WARNING that the set
> value exceeds PQ_QUERY_PARAM_MAX_LIMIT, but does not reject the change
> because this value could theoretically (but very unlikely) get smaller in
> the future and we don't want to mess up any pg_restores or pg_upgrades.
>
>
I am not able to understand this clearly, are you saying there should be a
new check for this NOTICE/WARNING or should the DEBUG1 message (in the
patch upthread) be a NOTICE/WARNING?
--
Regards,
Rafia Sabih
CYBERTEC PostgreSQL International GmbH
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jonathan Gonzalez V. | 2026-06-09 11:43:35 | Re: Add pg_get_publication_ddl function |
| Previous Message | Jonathan Gonzalez V. | 2026-06-09 11:35:33 | Re: Add pg_get_publication_ddl function |