On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 9:31 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > ... and that would be a seriously bad API. There are not SUSET > restrictions on other resources such as work_mem. Why do we need > one for this?
I think a better analogy would be imposing a maximum number of rows a query can output. That might be a sane thing to have for some circumstances but it's not useful in general. Consider for instance my favourite recursive query application, displaying the lock dependency graph for pg_locks. What arbitrary maximum number of locks would you like to impose at which the query should error out? There is a situation though that I think is motivating this though where it would be nice to detect a problem: when the query is such that it *can't* produce a record because there's an infinite loop before the first record. Ideally you want some way to detect that you've recursed and haven't changed anything that could lead to a change in the recursion condition. But that seems like a pretty hard thing to detect, probably impossible. -- greg -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers