Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Patch for - Change FETCH/MOVE to use int8

2006-08-13 Thread Tom Lane
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

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Patch for - Change FETCH/MOVE to use int8

2006-08-13 Thread Bruce Momjian
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

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Patch for - Change FETCH/MOVE to use int8

2006-08-13 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane wrote: 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