From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>
Cc: zuming.jiang@inf.ethz.ch
Cc: pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BUG #17995: Segmentation fault caused by UPDATE statement
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2023 13:56:42 +0900
Message-ID: <ZJkais2u82EUwD24@paquier.xyz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <636983.1687753628@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <17995-9f20ff3e6389db4c@postgresql.org>
<285547.1687636319@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<68148dac-a574-f421-2905-51ebde2fe000@gmail.com>
<ZJkSW1F78yDV2bjl@paquier.xyz>
<636983.1687753628@sss.pgh.pa.us>
On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 12:27:08AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
>> Thanks for the pointer, I'll double-check that. Some of the locations
>> of stack depth checks proposed involve performance-sensitive code
>> paths, though, like mcxt.c :/
>
> I hadn't looked at the patch yet, but ... mcxt.c? How is that recursive?
> Even if there is some path that recurses through that, wouldn't the
> check be better placed in a less-hot part of the loop?
Yeah, that's my impression. I'll switch to the other thread after
looking more in details.
--
Michael
Attachments:
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 832B) download
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: pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org
Cc: michael@paquier.xyz, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, exclusion@gmail.com, zuming.jiang@inf.ethz.ch, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BUG #17995: Segmentation fault caused by UPDATE statement
In-Reply-To: <ZJkais2u82EUwD24@paquier.xyz>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox