Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dXZNM-0008QO-H3 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 20:45:48 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dXZNM-0000G3-0J for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 20:45:48 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:1501:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dXZLo-0005xa-W4 for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 20:44:13 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dXZLh-0002sx-7m for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 20:44:11 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v6IKhxc7006326; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 16:43:59 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Andres Freund cc: Julien Rouhaud , pgsql-hackers Subject: Re: segfault in HEAD when too many nested functions call In-reply-to: <20170718200410.254wlnzpmzxwskor@alap3.anarazel.de> References: <12302.1500132157@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20170717072629.dqykbsot2irdob7c@alap3.anarazel.de> <20170717145710.cm32m4yn555hsoxd@alap3.anarazel.de> <3979.1500407153@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20170718200410.254wlnzpmzxwskor@alap3.anarazel.de> Comments: In-reply-to Andres Freund message dated "Tue, 18 Jul 2017 13:04:10 -0700" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <6324.1500410639.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 16:43:59 -0400 Message-ID: <6325.1500410639@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-hackers Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org Andres Freund writes: > On 2017-07-18 15:45:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> While I'm uncomfortable with making such a change post-beta2, I'm one >> heck of a lot *more* uncomfortable with shipping v10 with no stack depth >> checks in the executor mainline. Fleshing this out and putting it in >> v10 might be an acceptable compromise. > Ok, I'll flesh out the patch till Thursday. But I do think we're going > to have to do something about the back branches, too. I'm not worried about the back branches. The stack depth checks have been in those same places for ten years at least, and there are no field reports of trouble. 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