Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

Thread: Proposed TODO: fetch->INT8

Proposed TODO: fetch->INT8

From
"Merlin Moncure"
Date:
I was browsing the TODO list and I noticed the todo to bump limit/offset
to int8.  IMO, the flavors of fetch that take a numeric parameter need
this as well.

FWIW, trying to pass integer > 2^31 to fetch gives a syntax error, which
is clearly wrong.

Merlin

Re: Proposed TODO: fetch->INT8

From
Jeff Davis
Date:
Is there a practical use for retrieving > 2^31 records at once?

(this is a serious question, I'm not arguing that it should cause a
syntax error)

Regards,Jeff Davis

On Mon, 2005-01-24 at 14:13 -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> I was browsing the TODO list and I noticed the todo to bump limit/offset
> to int8.  IMO, the flavors of fetch that take a numeric parameter need
> this as well.
> 
> FWIW, trying to pass integer > 2^31 to fetch gives a syntax error, which
> is clearly wrong.
> 
> Merlin
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
>       subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
>       message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Re: Proposed TODO: fetch->INT8

From
"Merlin Moncure"
Date:
Jeff wrote:
> Is there a practical use for retrieving > 2^31 records at once?
>
> (this is a serious question, I'm not arguing that it should cause a
> syntax error)
>
> Regards,
>     Jeff Davis
>
> On Mon, 2005-01-24 at 14:13 -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> > I was browsing the TODO list and I noticed the todo to bump
limit/offset
> > to int8.  IMO, the flavors of fetch that take a numeric parameter
need
> > this as well.
> >
> > FWIW, trying to pass integer > 2^31 to fetch gives a syntax error,
which
> > is clearly wrong.

No, but don't forget about relative positioning:
fetch relative c from huge_cursor;

Could make a reasonable case for that.
Merlin

Re: Proposed TODO: fetch->INT8

From
Bruce Momjian
Date:
Merlin Moncure wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
> > Is there a practical use for retrieving > 2^31 records at once?
> > 
> > (this is a serious question, I'm not arguing that it should cause a
> > syntax error)
> > 
> > Regards,
> >     Jeff Davis
> > 
> > On Mon, 2005-01-24 at 14:13 -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> > > I was browsing the TODO list and I noticed the todo to bump
> limit/offset
> > > to int8.  IMO, the flavors of fetch that take a numeric parameter
> need
> > > this as well.
> > >
> > > FWIW, trying to pass integer > 2^31 to fetch gives a syntax error,
> which
> > > is clearly wrong.
> 
> No, but don't forget about relative positioning:
> fetch relative c from huge_cursor;

TODO updated:
* Change LIMIT/OFFSET and FETCH/MOVE to use int8

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
359-1001+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073