From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
cc: Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Re-add recently-removed tests for ltree and intarray
In-reply-to: <agZc6XecyE7E7fep@paquier.xyz>
References: <agZc6XecyE7E7fep@paquier.xyz>
Comments: In-reply-to Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
	message dated "Fri, 15 May 2026 08:38:17 +0900"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1140009.1778810969.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2026 22:09:29 -0400
Message-ID: <1140010.1778810969@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1140010.1778810969%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
> Some of you may have noticed that some regression tests have been
> removed due to some noise in the buildfarm, as of commit 906ea101d0d5.

> We did not have time to do something for this release, unfortunately.
> It is possible to reproduce the incompatibility by setting
> max_stack_depth to a low value, where the first new query of ltree and
> intarray would fail, when written in their original shape.

Just to add a little more color to this --- what we discovered after
there was time for some investigation was that:

(a) the stack-overflow failure occurred in the findoprnd() function
of intarray/_int_bool.c or ltree/ltxtquery_io.c.

(b) the failure only appeared on buildfarm members running on ppc64
or s390x.  I determined by examining assembly code that ppc64 uses
about 3X as much stack per call level in this function as x86_64;
probably s390x is similar.  That was enough to overrun our default
max_stack_depth on these architectures, even though the same case
passed on the machines we'd tested on.

(c) even with minimum max_stack_depth, the test passed using gcc
but not clang.  Again examining assembly code, gcc is smart enough
to collapse the tail-recursion calls in findoprnd() into looping,
causing the original test case's right-deep query tree to consume
essentially zero stack space.  clang doesn't do that, at least not
on those arches at default optimization level.  You can make gcc
fail too with -O0.

So it'd be good to verify on a few oddball platforms that Michael's
new attempt is OK.  It should theoretically work, but ...

			regards, tom lane