Greetings,
* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> > * Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> >> We could hard-code a rule like that, or we could introduce a new
> >> explicit parameter for the maximum cover length. The latter would be
> >> more flexible, but we need something back-patchable and I'm concerned
> >> about the compatibility hazards of adding a new parameter in minor
> >> releases. So on the whole I propose hard-wiring a multiplier of,
> >> say, 10 for both these cases.
>
> > That sounds alright to me, though I do think we should probably still
> > toss a CFI (or two) in this path somewhere as we don't know how long
> > some of these functions might take...
>
> Yeah, of course. I'm still leaning to doing that in TS_execute_recurse.
Works for me.
Thanks!
Stephen
