Re: Should we add a compiler warning for large stack frames?

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Should we add a compiler warning for large stack frames?
Date: 2024-04-12 12:29:29
Message-ID: 5dcf817e-beef-423e-8a43-615fd960638d@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On 2024-04-11 Th 16:17, Andres Freund wrote:
> 128k is probably not going to be an issue in practice. However, it also seems
> not great from a performance POV to use this much stack in a function that's
> called fairly often. I'd allocate the buffer in verify_backup_checksums() and
> reuse it across all to-be-checked files.
>
>

Yes, I agree. I'll make that happen in the next day or two.

cheers

andrew

--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB:https://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tomas Vondra 2024-04-12 12:40:36 Re: Add notes to pg_combinebackup docs
Previous Message Tomas Vondra 2024-04-12 12:27:16 Re: post-freeze damage control