On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 10:47 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> A few days ago I added a regression test that involves a plpgsql
> function calling a sql function, which recurses back to the plpgsql
> function, etc, to a depth of 10 cycles (ie 10 plpgsql function calls
> and 10 sql function calls). There are three buildfarm members that
> are failing with "stack depth limit exceeded" errors on this test.
> What should we do about that? Possibilities include:
> 1. Back off the recursion nesting depth of the test to whatever
> it takes to get those buildfarm critters happy.
> 2. Lobby the buildfarm owners to increase their ulimit -s settings.
> 3. Chisel things enough to get the case to pass, eg by reducing the
> no-doubt-generous value of STACK_DEPTH_SLOP.
> I don't especially care for choice #1. To me, one of the things that
> the regression tests ought to flag is whether a machine is so limited
> that "reasonable" coding might fail. If you can't do twenty or so
> levels of function call you've got a mighty limited machine.
Agreed. So how much stack space does 10 or 20 nested calls actually use?
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Heikki Linnakangas||Date: 2010-10-31 19:10:07|
|Subject: Re: ALTER OBJECT any_name SET SCHEMA name|
|Previous:||From: Pavel Stehule||Date: 2010-10-31 18:43:07|
|Subject: Re: type info refactoring|