Re: Stack overflow issue

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Robert Haas
Тема Re: Stack overflow issue
Дата
Msg-id CA+TgmoYQvB0fWJcD1DwBXgRnRFtSyRCepCTH4K3Pf7Bg0FJtKg@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Stack overflow issue  (Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>)
Ответы Re: Stack overflow issue  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Re: Stack overflow issue  (Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 10:47 AM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> wrote:
> What do you think?

At least for 0001 and 0002, I think we should just add the stack depth checks.

With regard to 0001, CommitTransactionCommand() and friends are hard
enough to understand as it is; they need "goto" like I need an extra
hole in my head.

With regard to 0002, this function isn't sufficiently important to
justify adding special-case code for an extremely rare event. We
should just handle it the way we do in general.

I agree that in the memory-context case it might be worth expending
some more code to be more clever. But I probably wouldn't do that for
MemoryContextStats(); check_stack_depth() seems fine for that one.

In general, I think we should try to keep the number of places that
handle stack overflow in "special" ways as small as possible.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Jelte Fennema-Nio
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Add new protocol message to change GUCs for usage with future protocol-only GUCs
Следующее
От: Robert Haas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Add new protocol message to change GUCs for usage with future protocol-only GUCs