Greetings, * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes: > > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > >> We could hard-code a rule like that, or we could introduce a new > >> explicit parameter for the maximum cover length. The latter would be > >> more flexible, but we need something back-patchable and I'm concerned > >> about the compatibility hazards of adding a new parameter in minor > >> releases. So on the whole I propose hard-wiring a multiplier of, > >> say, 10 for both these cases. > > > That sounds alright to me, though I do think we should probably still > > toss a CFI (or two) in this path somewhere as we don't know how long > > some of these functions might take... > > Yeah, of course. I'm still leaning to doing that in TS_execute_recurse.
Works for me. Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
