| From: | "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joe Conway" <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Hackers (PostgreSQL)" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SIGSEGV on cvs tip/7.3.2 |
| Date: | 2003-05-28 02:11:58 |
| Message-ID: | 06ed01c324be$857b91c0$6500a8c0@fhp.internal |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> There's been some past speculation about putting in a function call
> nesting depth limit, but I haven't been able to think of any reasonable
> way to estimate a safe limit. The stack size limit varies a lot across
> different platforms, and the amount of stack space consumed per PL
> function call level seems hard to estimate too. We do have a nesting
> depth limit for expressions, which is intended specifically to avoid
> stack overflow during expression eval --- but the amount of stack chewed
> per expression level is relatively small and predictable.
GUC variable? Hmm...but that would mean that a normal user could still just
crash the machine...?
Chris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | carl garland | 2003-05-28 02:24:46 | Re: RBLs ... I'm tired of spam ... |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-05-28 02:09:24 | Re: [PATCHES] Sequence usage patch |