Tom Lane wrote:
> 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 ;-)

Think MOVE to a specific section of the cursor > 2gig.  I can see that
happening.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  EnterpriseDB    http://www.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

---------------------------(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