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