On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:35:42PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> On Monday 19 July 2010 20:32:49 Andres Freund wrote:
> > On Monday 19 July 2010 20:19:35 Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > > On 19/07/10 20:58, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > > On Monday 19 July 2010 19:57:13 Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > >> Excerpts from Andres Freund's message of lun jul 19 11:58:06 -0400
> 2010:
> > > >>> It seems easy enough to throw a check_stack_depth() in there -
> > > >>> survives make check here.
> > > >>
> > > >> I wonder if it would work to deal with the problem non-recursively
> > > >> instead. We don't impose subxact depth restrictions elsewhere, why
> > > >> start now?
> > > >
> > > > It looks trivial enough, but whats the point?
> > >
> > > To support more than <insert abitrary limit here> subtransactions,
> > > obviously.
> >
> > Well. I got that far. But why is that something worthy of support?
> > For one I have a hard time imaging a sensible use case, for another doing
> > anything in that deeply nested transactions seems to gets really slow (the
> > chain of transactions gets walked at some places for one thing, there seem
> > to be others).
> >
> > If want I can write a patch for that as well, seems to be trivial enough.
> Updated patch attached.
hm. I dont want to push - just to ask: Is any comitter looking either
at the patch or the bug?
Greetings,
Andres
