public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
To: Paul A Jungwirth <[email protected]>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]>
Cc: Chao Li <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: SQL:2011 Application Time Update & Delete
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2026 12:03:30 -0400
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+renyXfWeQ71YYWPAuMvpVNztMtv2rW62fwzo=F_h6g9JjT+g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<CA+renyUazgR-hB_6RY60n23L0y-n_h9G1AappZmPENO0k5pL1g@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CA+renyVXg5pV84wQnGQuK8-=qoKw3BiBgQzesxM_LkcxxWmYjA@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CA+renyWKOj5=rMmQmJcbybu-Vdomxdp=eJ93kp76AgmQKYdfiQ@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CA+renyUhuXB2nTVCMREXew9E4DZOnFxQNjME5bcw91+k72Bosg@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+renyWUCSyTMn3s03kviEN-oaVrJP-QkDQCLNfaY=MHV5QEiQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+renyV4tWU2d=n9_v=XNPHbZfNqqLokzd-Xt78M-zLd+46ubA@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CA+renyUSgqXpjj+vV7w+wirPB49VQFrmPjVT_s04JmZSOPNNsQ@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CA+renyX-eV+2hFUaZg3BSREqLE7dh+LoWm7ZqhFAiGsirjjtRQ@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<C! A+renyVdyBcLzh2sFWUJ44A+N+7qL=f7rAyDOqFsTHTDb5q=SA@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CA+renyXfWeQ71YYWPAuMvpVNztMtv2rW62fwzo=F_h6g9JjT+g@mail.gmail.com>
Paul A Jungwirth <[email protected]> writes:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 7:33 AM Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote:
>> But speaking of infinite loops, should this one contain a
>> CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS call? It's hard to conceive of a case where
>> the value would be broken down finely enough for that to be a
>> problem, but ...
> A rangetype could only loop 0-2 times; a multirange 0-1. So I don't
> think we need it. Eventually user-defined types could loop more, but a
> design that inserts many records every time you change something seems
> like a bad idea. Maybe I would add it anyway just out of caution, but
> I suspect it's excessive.
Fair enough. It's quite likely that we'd hit at least one CFI down
inside the insertion anyway.
regards, tom lane
view thread (54+ messages) latest in thread
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: SQL:2011 Application Time Update & Delete
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox