From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
cc: Julien Rouhaud <julien.rouhaud@dalibo.com>,
        pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: segfault in HEAD when too many nested functions call
In-reply-to: <12302.1500132157@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <b0af9eaa-130c-60d0-9e4e-7a135b1e0c76@dalibo.com>
 <12302.1500132157@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Comments: In-reply-to Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	message dated "Sat, 15 Jul 2017 11:22:37 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <13693.1500134244.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2017 11:57:24 -0400
Message-ID: <13694.1500134244@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

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