Re: Selecting large tables gets killed
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Selecting large tables gets killed |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 26679.1392907907@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Selecting large tables gets killed (Marti Raudsepp <marti@juffo.org>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Selecting large tables gets killed
|
| Список | 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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: