Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> 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 bruce@momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
