From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Dhanaraj M <Dhanaraj(dot)M(at)Sun(dot)COM>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Patch for - Change FETCH/MOVE to use int8 |
Date: | 2006-08-14 02:05:18 |
Message-ID: | 200608140205.k7E25Iq24870@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> > I don't think this is the right approach. Maybe it would be reasonable
> > to add another arm to the %union instead, not sure. The problem is the
> > amount of ugly casts you have to use below. The scanner code seems to
> > think that a constant larger than the biggest int4 should be treated as
> > float, so I'm not sure why this would work anyway.
>
> I'm not sure that I see the point of this at all. ISTM the entire
> reason for using a cursor is that you're going to fetch the results
> in bite-size pieces. I don't see the current Postgres source code
> surviving into the era where >2G rows is considered bite-size ;-)
Think MOVE to a specific section of the cursor > 2gig. I can see that
happening.
--
Bruce Momjian bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-08-14 02:05:59 | Re: [PATCHES] extension for sql update |
Previous Message | Yoshiyuki Asaba | 2006-08-14 01:31:01 | Re: [HACKERS] SO_SNDBUF size is small on win32? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-08-14 02:05:59 | Re: [PATCHES] extension for sql update |
Previous Message | Yoshiyuki Asaba | 2006-08-14 01:31:01 | Re: [HACKERS] SO_SNDBUF size is small on win32? |