On 2017-10-08 16:27:51 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> > On 2017-10-06 21:08:43 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> I'm kinda tempted to put this, after a bit more testing, into v10.
>
> > Any opinions on that?
>
> I think it's fine to put it in HEAD. I would not risk back-patching
> into v10. Now that we fixed the new leak, v10 is on par with the last
> umpteen years worth of tSRF behavior, and we've not had very many
> complaints about that.
WFM. Was only thinking about it, because it'd give the OP a chance to
upgrade to a supported release and get rid of the behaviour. But given
he's essentially hitting O(n^2) runtime even aftre that, just rewriting
the query is the saner option anyway...
Will make it so.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs