From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
cc: Nikolay Shaplov <n.shaplov@postgrespro.ru>,
        pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org,
        Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: BUG #17962: postgresql 11 hangs on poly_contain with specific
 data
In-reply-to: <ZIasOCCcis6Nveqm@paquier.xyz>
References: <17962-4f00b6f26724858d@postgresql.org>
 <20230606.140749.1678060452808896223.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
 <20230606.141736.939081296219135931.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
 <31814440.0auUPBzOZ3@thinkpad-pgpro> <ZIasOCCcis6Nveqm@paquier.xyz>
Comments: In-reply-to Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
	message dated "Mon, 12 Jun 2023 14:25:12 +0900"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1166429.1686575666.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2023 09:14:26 -0400
Message-ID: <1166430.1686575666@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1166430.1686575666%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
> Anyway, I am not really convinced that we need to do anything here,
> either, knowing that v12 is able to fail early without relying on
> check_stack_depth(), and that v11 will be EOL'd in a couple of
> months.

Yeah, I couldn't get excited about it either.  The fact that an
underflow check stops the loop seems a bit accidental.  But the
proposed patch is not noticeably less magic than that, and who's
to say whether it doesn't cause unnecessary failures in other
cases besides the one given?

			regards, tom lane