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

Re: Server process exited with unexpected status 128.

From: Thomas Hallgren <thhal(at)mailblocks(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Андрей Репко <repko(at)sart(dot)must-ipra(dot)com>,pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Server process exited with unexpected status 128.
Date: 2005-09-29 06:17:15
Message-ID: thhal-0bx8XBE2g8bQ6TrpBvg64oJN7k4PZsR@mailblocks.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> 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 have PL/Java users that set a ridiculously high value in 
max_stack_depth just to circumvent the check altogether since it breaks 
when the executes code using another thread then main (see previous 
discussion "stack depth limit exceeded problem" started 9/23 for more info).

If you plan to limit the GUC setting, please, *please*, also provide a 
way for PL/Java to switch stack_base. I will write the patch immediately 
if you approve.

Regards,
Thomas Hallgren


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Ron PeacetreeDate: 2005-09-29 06:21:10
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] A Better External Sort?
Previous:From: Jeffrey W. BakerDate: 2005-09-29 04:33:46
Subject: Sequential I/O Cost (was Re: A Better External Sort?)

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