Re: Re-add recently-removed tests for ltree and intarray

From: John Naylor <johncnaylorls(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Re-add recently-removed tests for ltree and intarray
Date: 2026-05-15 02:47:04
Message-ID: CANWCAZZTa8oVUvUN_-ueySDRjCqNNWAr5Mb4D2ARbmA2LiBPAw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 9:09 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> (b) the failure only appeared on buildfarm members running on ppc64
> or s390x. I determined by examining assembly code that ppc64 uses
> about 3X as much stack per call level in this function as x86_64;
> probably s390x is similar. That was enough to overrun our default
> max_stack_depth on these architectures, even though the same case
> passed on the machines we'd tested on.

FWIW, I tried to reproduce with the former new tests un-reverted, and
didn't see stack overflow on the following, so unless I fat-fingered
that I wonder if there's something more specific on the previously
failing members:

ppc64le / gcc 8.5 / Linux kernel 4.18
S390X / gcc 13.3 / Linux kernel 6.8

--
John Naylor
Amazon Web Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2026-05-15 02:49:38 Re: Re-add recently-removed tests for ltree and intarray
Previous Message Tom Lane 2026-05-15 02:09:29 Re: Re-add recently-removed tests for ltree and intarray