Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1ptxRi-0006z8-Tw for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 02 May 2023 21:22:02 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1ptxRh-0000tu-62 for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 02 May 2023 21:22:01 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1ptxRg-0000tl-UC for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 02 May 2023 21:22:00 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1ptxRa-000Dlw-0K for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 02 May 2023 21:22:00 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 342LLpD12834902; Tue, 2 May 2023 17:21:51 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Daniel Gustafsson cc: Kieran McCusker , pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: plpython does not honour max-rows In-reply-to: References: <711512C7-2BC2-4901-A368-6A5A23023F72@yesql.se> <2678018.1683036150@sss.pgh.pa.us> <2830145.1683059955@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Daniel Gustafsson message dated "Tue, 02 May 2023 22:50:17 +0200" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <2834900.1683062511.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 02 May 2023 17:21:51 -0400 Message-ID: <2834901.1683062511@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Daniel Gustafsson writes: > On 2 May 2023, at 22:39, Tom Lane wrote: >> mainly because >> plperl's spi_exec_prepared uses that name as a caller-exposed hash key. > But I didn't realize that, and in light of that I agree that limit is be= tter. OK, let's do it like that then. >> I'm not especially concerned about the wording otherwise. > Neither am I, both are fine I think. I'll compare and merge the two patches and push. Thanks for looking at it! regards, tom lane