Re: SIGSEGV on cvs tip/7.3.2 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: SIGSEGV on cvs tip/7.3.2
Date
Msg-id 14861.1054044425@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to SIGSEGV on cvs tip/7.3.2  (Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> writes:
> Granted, in retrospect it's a pretty brain-dead thing to do ;-), but it 
> seems the system should protect me better from myself.

There's been some past speculation about putting in a function call
nesting depth limit, but I haven't been able to think of any reasonable
way to estimate a safe limit.  The stack size limit varies a lot across
different platforms, and the amount of stack space consumed per PL
function call level seems hard to estimate too.  We do have a nesting
depth limit for expressions, which is intended specifically to avoid
stack overflow during expression eval --- but the amount of stack chewed
per expression level is relatively small and predictable.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Shridhar Daithankar"
Date:
Subject: Re: techdocs down?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: techdocs down?