Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Remove size limit #1929

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Feb 23, 2017
Merged

Remove size limit #1929

merged 6 commits into from
Feb 23, 2017

Conversation

josmo
Copy link

@josmo josmo commented Feb 5, 2017

temp fix for #1783 and until #1793 or the alternative get pulled in. This should deal with larger number of repos on non SQLite dbs

@bradrydzewski
Copy link

The size limit is necessary because sqlite cannot handle more than 999 parameters. This limitation is discussed at http:https://www.sqlite.org/limits.html

Therefore toList cannot be increased for sqlite

@bradrydzewski
Copy link

Note that I'm fine with increasing for Postgres and MySQL, but we need to keep this limit in place for installations using SQLite.

@josmo josmo closed this Feb 5, 2017
@josmo josmo reopened this Feb 5, 2017
@josmo
Copy link
Author

josmo commented Feb 5, 2017

I thought the last commit I had (based on a past comment ) only made the increase applicable to non SQLite but I'll double check.

@josmo
Copy link
Author

josmo commented Feb 5, 2017

@bradrydzewski after looking at it, I have it so that it will increase the limit for mySQL (toList) and postgres but not SQLite (toList makes the check). Let me know if I'm missing something :)

var size = len(listof)
if size > 999 {
switch {
case meddler.Default == meddler.SQLite && size > 999:

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't think this change is required because toListPostgres should only be invoked when meddler.Default == meddler. PostgreSQL. If you are seeing otherwise in the code let me know

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You're right it does get covered since it's only in the PostgreSQL portion. I updated to not check again.

@bradrydzewski
Copy link

@josmo you are correct, looks like you've got your bases covered. I did add one last comment

@josmo
Copy link
Author

josmo commented Feb 11, 2017

@bradrydzewski updated for your comment so it should be ready :)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants