Gregory Stark wrote:
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Couldn't we just have it pay attention to the existing
max_stack_depth?
Recursive query does not consume stack. The server enters an infinite
loop without consuming stack. Stack-depth error does not happen.
Hans-Juergen Schoenig wrote:
Gregory Stark wrote:
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
i don't think statement_timeout is a good idea at all.
it is not deterministic. depending on the load on the server some
queries will execute while others fail.
a separate GUC is needed.
I
[ catching up on back email ]
Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Yoshiyuki Asaba" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Recursive query does not consume stack. The server enters an infinite
>> loop without consuming stack. Stack-depth error does not happen.
> We could have a separate guc varia
On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 05:08:51AM -0700, David Fetter wrote:
> On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 08:51:29PM +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> > WITH RECURSIVE patch V0.1
>
> Please find updated patch with bug fixes from Yoshiyuki Asaba and
> Michael Meskes. Any mistakes in it are mine. :)
As promised, the mis
Greg Sabino Mullane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Documentation patch by Kevin L. McBride explaining LOCK_DEBUG options
> in detail.
Should this stuff really go into the SGML documentation, when these
options will certainly never be enabled anywhere except in developers'
private builds? A few lin
