From: | Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com |
Cc: | pierre(dot)ducroquet(at)people-doc(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [RFC] Add an until-0 loop in psql |
Date: | 2018-04-28 05:36:11 |
Message-ID: | CADkLM=cdfw66wZZtOBbfKOZ=2KBQ955d79a_cjb6YyesniJMLA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>> What you don't see here is that you're using your psql process's
>> available open file handles as a stack, and when you hit that limit psql
>> will fail. If you remove that limit, then you get a bit further before psql
>> segfaults on you. I think I got ~2700 files deep before that happened. Your
>> stackage may vary.
>>
>> I'm not saying this is a good solution, quite the contrary. I think the
>> sane solution is right around the corner in Version 11.
>>
>> Now if we just had a way of passing parameters into DO blocks...
>>
>
> I hope so there will be schema (temporal) variables:
>
> create temp variable foo int default 10;
>
> do $$
> begin
> for i in 1..foo loop
> raise notice '%', i;
> end loop;
> end;
> $$;
>
That would be nice too.
A while back, somebody explained why implementing parameters in a DO block
was so hard, but I don't recall why, and the search terms "do" and
"parameter" don't really narrow things down.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Konstantin Knizhnik | 2018-04-28 07:37:30 | Re: Built-in connection pooling |
Previous Message | Atri Sharma | 2018-04-28 04:53:02 | Re: GSoC 2018: Sorting Algorithm and Benchmarking |