Re: [HACKERS] segfault in HEAD when too many nested functions call - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] segfault in HEAD when too many nested functions call
Date
Msg-id 20855.1501095817@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] segfault in HEAD when too many nested functions call  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] segfault in HEAD when too many nested functions call
List pgsql-hackers
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> I've moved the CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() to the callsites. That
> unsurprisingly ends up being somewhat verbose, and there's a bunch of
> minor judgement calls where exactly to place them. While doing so I've
> also added a few extra ones.  Did this in a separate patch to make it
> easier to review.

Hm, that seems kinda backwards to me; I was envisioning the checks
moving to the callees not the callers.  I think it'd end up being
about the same number of occurrences of CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(),
and there would be less of a judgment call about where to put them.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] expand_dbname in postgres_fdw
Next
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump does not handle indirectly-granted permissions properly