Greetings, * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > We could hard-code a rule like that, or we could introduce a new > explicit parameter for the maximum cover length. The latter would be > more flexible, but we need something back-patchable and I'm concerned > about the compatibility hazards of adding a new parameter in minor > releases. So on the whole I propose hard-wiring a multiplier of, > say, 10 for both these cases.
That sounds alright to me, though I do think we should probably still toss a CFI (or two) in this path somewhere as we don't know how long some of these functions might take... Thanks, Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
