Re: Missing CFI in hlCover()?
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Missing CFI in hlCover()? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1386779.1596119840@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Missing CFI in hlCover()? (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: Missing CFI in hlCover()?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes: > * Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: >> We could hard-code a rule like that, or we could introduce a new >> explicit parameter for the maximum cover length. The latter would be >> more flexible, but we need something back-patchable and I'm concerned >> about the compatibility hazards of adding a new parameter in minor >> releases. So on the whole I propose hard-wiring a multiplier of, >> say, 10 for both these cases. > That sounds alright to me, though I do think we should probably still > toss a CFI (or two) in this path somewhere as we don't know how long > some of these functions might take... Yeah, of course. I'm still leaning to doing that in TS_execute_recurse. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: