From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Paul A Jungwirth <pj@illuminatedcomputing.com>
cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>, Chao Li <li.evan.chao@gmail.com>,
        PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: SQL:2011 Application Time Update & Delete
In-reply-to: 
 <CA+renyXfWeQ71YYWPAuMvpVNztMtv2rW62fwzo=F_h6g9JjT+g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ec498c3d-5f2b-48ec-b989-5561c8aa2024@illuminatedcomputing.com>
 <85ac7f0e-d95f-4377-ade0-8941fd328012@eisentraut.org>
 <CA+renyUazgR-hB_6RY60n23L0y-n_h9G1AappZmPENO0k5pL1g@mail.gmail.com>
 <7d63ddfa-c735-4dfe-8c7a-4f1e2a621058@eisentraut.org>
 <CA+renyVXg5pV84wQnGQuK8-=qoKw3BiBgQzesxM_LkcxxWmYjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <e59d218a-ae49-490f-ae6f-86c12f35d3c3@eisentraut.org>
 <CA+renyWKOj5=rMmQmJcbybu-Vdomxdp=eJ93kp76AgmQKYdfiQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <4606deaa-7d65-4f22-8a78-356c3180be9d@eisentraut.org>
 <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>
 <53f1c094-3c29-4ef6-a9bd-dc2e7894ceb0@eisentraut.org>
 <CA+renyUSgqXpjj+vV7w+wirPB49VQFrmPjVT_s04JmZSOPNNsQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <b2ecbf9f-797f-433d-953f-3c848cde5a1c@eisentraut.org>
 <CA+renyX-eV+2hFUaZg3BSREqLE7dh+LoWm7ZqhFAiGsirjjtRQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <4126231.1776622202@sss.pgh.pa.us> <C!
 A+renyVdyBcLzh2sFWUJ44A+N+7qL=f7rAyDOqFsTHTDb5q=SA@mail.gmail.com>
 <260137.1776695634@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+renyXfWeQ71YYWPAuMvpVNztMtv2rW62fwzo=F_h6g9JjT+g@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Paul A Jungwirth <pj@illuminatedcomputing.com>
	message dated "Mon, 20 Apr 2026 08:48:31 -0700"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-ID: <270215.1776701010.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2026 12:03:30 -0400
Message-ID: <270216.1776701010@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/270216.1776701010%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Paul A Jungwirth <pj@illuminatedcomputing.com> writes:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 7:33 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> 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