| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
| Cc: | Egor Chindyaskin <kyzevan23(at)mail(dot)ru>, Sascha Kuhl <yogidabanli(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Stack overflow issue |
| Date: | 2024-01-05 17:23:25 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYQvB0fWJcD1DwBXgRnRFtSyRCepCTH4K3Pf7Bg0FJtKg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 10:47 AM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> wrote:
> What do you think?
At least for 0001 and 0002, I think we should just add the stack depth checks.
With regard to 0001, CommitTransactionCommand() and friends are hard
enough to understand as it is; they need "goto" like I need an extra
hole in my head.
With regard to 0002, this function isn't sufficiently important to
justify adding special-case code for an extremely rare event. We
should just handle it the way we do in general.
I agree that in the memory-context case it might be worth expending
some more code to be more clever. But I probably wouldn't do that for
MemoryContextStats(); check_stack_depth() seems fine for that one.
In general, I think we should try to keep the number of places that
handle stack overflow in "special" ways as small as possible.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2024-01-05 17:26:18 | Re: Add new protocol message to change GUCs for usage with future protocol-only GUCs |
| Previous Message | Jelte Fennema-Nio | 2024-01-05 17:20:46 | Re: Add new protocol message to change GUCs for usage with future protocol-only GUCs |