| From: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
| Cc: | SATYANARAYANA NARLAPURAM <satyanarlapuram(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Bug: Missing check_stack_depth() in GRAPH_TABLE rewriter |
| Date: | 2026-04-24 09:29:45 |
| Message-ID: | CAExHW5tywW_yYxXnrpwpCmG-K4QQbyVjqXyNuuwydTcV9VHE8A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Apr 24, 2026 at 11:54 AM Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> wrote:
>
> On 15.04.26 17:07, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> > Thanks for the report. I could reproduce the segfault on my laptop.
> > The attached patch fixes it and gives ERROR: stack depth limit
> > exceeded.
> >
> > generate_queries_for_path_pattern_recurse() - has to work in a linear
> > fashion since the elements need to be processed in an order. Each
> > permutation of elements produces one query. These queries can be
> > arranged in a balanced tree as you suggest OR when constructing the
> > setop tree we could generate it in divide-and-conquer manner. However,
> > the tree will be flattened in the planner anyway (See
> > flatten_simple_union_all() and pull_up_simple_union_all()). Thus the
> > final planning will require a deeper stack anyway. The code complexity
> > doesn't seem to be worth it.
> >
> > I also looked at a few commits that add check_stack_depth() to see if
> > we add tests for these scenarios. But I didn't find any. So no tests
> > added with this commit.
>
> committed
>
Thanks a lot for committing this and other fixes.
> (I moved the #include "miscadmin.h" to a more alphabetical position.)
>
Didn't notice this. Sorry.
--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Previous Message | vignesh C | 2026-04-24 09:28:23 | Re: StringInfo fixes, v19 edition. Plus a few oddities |