Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: SIGSEGV on cvs tip/7.3.2

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
Cc: "Hackers (PostgreSQL)" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: SIGSEGV on cvs tip/7.3.2
Date: 2003-05-27 14:07:05
Message-ID: 14861.1054044425@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
> Granted, in retrospect it's a pretty brain-dead thing to do ;-), but it 
> seems the system should protect me better from myself.

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.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-05-27 14:22:01
Subject: Re: techdocs down?
Previous:From: Rod TaylorDate: 2003-05-27 14:02:54
Subject: Re: Sequence usage patch

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group