Re: Server process exited with unexpected status 128.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us]
> Sent: 26 September 2005 16:01
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: Андрей Репко; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Server process exited with unexpected
> status 128.
>
> "Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk> writes:
> >> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Tom Lane
> >>> max_stack_depth = 65536                 # min 100, size in KB
> >>
> >> Hmm, maybe this is the problem.  Are we sure Windows will
> >> allow a 64M stack?
>
> > Looks like we used 4MB in the backend by default:
> > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2005-01/msg00386.php
>
> D'oh.  Well, at the very least we have a documentation issue here.
>
> Is it sensible to try to prevent people from raising the GUC variable
> higher than the platform will allow?  It seems we can know
> the limit on
> Windows, but on most other platforms I don't think there's
> any good way
> to find it out.  (Which is why max_stack_depth is a SUSET variable ---
> you're assumed to know what you are doing if you change it.)

I think It's sensible if it's a limit we can find relatively easily. In this case though it sounds like this is not the
case.

Perhaps we could issue a warning at startup if the value seems like it might be over the top? I assume the current
limitis purely down to the data type. 

Regards, Dave