| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Matt Kelly <mkellycs(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [POC] FETCH limited by bytes. |
| Date: | 2016-01-25 20:22:36 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoY4HCEZMkcpo4tVfMxZPgF1A-a8z1UyXZ3A2uHqPe+GbQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> - We could consider folding fetch_size into "Remote Execution
>> Options", but maybe that's too clever.
>
> If you care to explain, I'm listening. Otherwise I'm going forward with the
> other suggestions you've made.
It's just a little unfortunate to have multiple sections with only a
single option in each. It would be nice to avoid that somehow.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2016-01-25 20:35:33 | why pg_size_pretty is volatile? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-01-25 19:41:09 | Re: 2016-01 Commitfest |