From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Julien Rouhaud <julien.rouhaud@dalibo.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: segfault in HEAD when too many nested functions call
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2017 11:57:24 -0400
Message-ID: <13694.1500134244@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <12302.1500132157@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <b0af9eaa-130c-60d0-9e4e-7a135b1e0c76@dalibo.com>
<12302.1500132157@sss.pgh.pa.us>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>
I wrote:
> I still think that we really need to add a check in ExecProcNode().
Actually ... to what extent could a check in ExecInitNode() substitute
for that? Or do we need both? How about ExecEndNode() and ExecReScan()?
You could argue that the latter two tree traversals are unlikely either to
consume more stack than ExecInitNode() or to be called from a more deeply
nested point. So maybe they're okay. But I'm not sure I believe that
initialization stack needs always exceed execution stack needs, though
sometimes they might.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
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-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, andres@anarazel.de, julien.rouhaud@dalibo.com
Subject: Re: segfault in HEAD when too many nested functions call
In-Reply-To: <13694.1500134244@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* 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