Re: Selecting large tables gets killed - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Selecting large tables gets killed
Date
Msg-id 26679.1392907907@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Selecting large tables gets killed  (Marti Raudsepp <marti@juffo.org>)
Responses Re: Selecting large tables gets killed  (Bernd Helmle <mailings@oopsware.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
Marti Raudsepp <marti@juffo.org> writes:
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Ashutosh Bapat
> <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>> That seems a good idea. We will get rid of FETCH_COUNT then, wouldn't we?

> No, I don't think we want to do that. FETCH_COUNT values greater than
> 1 are still useful to get reasonably tabulated output without hogging
> too much memory.

Yeah.  The other reason that you can't just transparently change the
behavior is error handling: people are used to seeing either all or
none of the output of a query.  In single-row mode that guarantee
fails, since some rows might get output before the server detects
an error.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: WAL Rate Limiting
Next
From: Greg Stark
Date:
Subject: Re: WAL Rate Limiting