Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 ;-)

I thought the int8-LIMIT patch was equally pointless, btw, but at
least it was not very invasive.  This one is not passing the minimum
usefulness-to-ugliness ratio for me.

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
       subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
       message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to