From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: John Naylor <jcnaylor@gmail.com>
cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: docs: outdated reference to recursive expression evaluation
In-reply-to: 
 <CAJVSVGUPH-0q5feP4v9b+Y8K3HGTn3bEd5KV7VbyUj-oFdSLzA@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAJVSVGUPH-0q5feP4v9b+Y8K3HGTn3bEd5KV7VbyUj-oFdSLzA@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to John Naylor <jcnaylor@gmail.com>
	message dated "Sat, 08 Dec 2018 07:21:09 -0500"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <30252.1544286631.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2018 11:30:31 -0500
Message-ID: <30253.1544286631@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

John Naylor <jcnaylor@gmail.com> writes:
> In confg.sgml, in the section about max_stack_depth, there's this sentence:
> "The safety margin is needed because the stack depth is not checked in
> every routine in the server, but only in key potentially-recursive
> routines such as expression evaluation."

> Since the change in expression evaluation in v10, there's probably a
> better example of recursive routines, but I'm not sure what that would
> be.

We could say "expression compilation" and it'd still be valid.  Or just
drop the last four words altogether.  I don't think we want to expend the
verbiage to be more precise here, since it's only a tangential point.

BTW, while looking at this I noted that copyfuncs.c has a
check_stack_depth call but outfuncs, readfuncs, equalfuncs don't.
Surely that's not good.

			regards, tom lane