| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: Should we have an optional limit on the recursion depth of recursive CTEs? |
| Date: | 2011-08-16 14:30:03 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoadvSFzKSLzpiFOq8EOmTot_NAZXn26sFcdxLhw4E+aQw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> In fact, we already have some things sort of like this: you can use
>> statement_timeout to kill queries that run for too long, and we just
>> recently added temp_file_limit to kill those that eat too much temp
>> file space. I can see a good case for memory_limit and
>> query_cpu_limit and maybe some others.
>
> temp_file_limit got accepted because it was constraining a resource not
> closely related to run time. I don't think that it provides a precedent
> in support of any of these other ideas.
Well, CPU usage might be somewhat closely related to query runtime,
but memory usage sure isn't.
But we digress from $SUBJECT...
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2011-08-16 14:32:55 | Updated version of pg_receivexlog |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-08-16 14:26:56 | Re: Re: Should we have an optional limit on the recursion depth of recursive CTEs? |