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

From Marti Raudsepp
Subject Re: Selecting large tables gets killed
Date
Msg-id CABRT9RDZaRhgP5F-NspF8G4gm85SBtu9+tGzvzfcyAYrsiF0zw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Selecting large tables gets killed  (Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: Selecting large tables gets killed  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
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. For example:

db=# \set FETCH_COUNT 3
db=# select repeat('a', i) a, 'x'x from generate_series(1,9)i; a  | x
-----+---a   | xaa  | xaaa | xaaaa   | xaaaaa  | xaaaaaa | xaaaaaaa   | xaaaaaaaa  | xaaaaaaaaa | x


Regards,
Marti



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "MauMau"
Date:
Subject: Re: [bug fix] pg_ctl fails with config-only directory
Next
From: Greg Stark
Date:
Subject: Another possible corruption bug in 9.3.2 or possibly a known MultiXact problem?