| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, 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 20:19:18 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZ9j49wXH7uBoU7GOtS4KHQafvTYvFV6sg0UunnSXgvpw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 3:16 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2024-01-05 12:23:25 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > 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.
>
> We run MemoryContextStats() when we fail to allocate memory, including during
> abort processing after a previous error. So I think it qualifies for being
> somewhat special.
OK.
> Thus I suspect check_stack_depth() wouldn't be a good idea -
> but we could make the stack_is_too_deep() path simpler and just return in the
> existing MemoryContextStatsInternal() when that's the case.
Since this kind of code will be exercised so rarely, it's highly
vulnerable to bugs, so I favor keeping it as simple as we can.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2024-01-05 20:23:12 | Re: Emit fewer vacuum records by reaping removable tuples during pruning |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2024-01-05 20:17:11 | Re: Error "initial slot snapshot too large" in create replication slot |