Re: Stack overflow issue - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Stack overflow issue
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoYQvB0fWJcD1DwBXgRnRFtSyRCepCTH4K3Pf7Bg0FJtKg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Stack overflow issue  (Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>)
Responses Re: Stack overflow issue
Re: Stack overflow issue
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 10:47 AM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> wrote:
> What do you think?

At least for 0001 and 0002, I think we should just add the stack depth checks.

With regard to 0001, CommitTransactionCommand() and friends are hard
enough to understand as it is; they need "goto" like I need an extra
hole in my head.

With regard to 0002, this function isn't sufficiently important to
justify adding special-case code for an extremely rare event. We
should just handle it the way we do in general.

I agree that in the memory-context case it might be worth expending
some more code to be more clever. But I probably wouldn't do that for
MemoryContextStats(); check_stack_depth() seems fine for that one.

In general, I think we should try to keep the number of places that
handle stack overflow in "special" ways as small as possible.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jelte Fennema-Nio
Date:
Subject: Re: Add new protocol message to change GUCs for usage with future protocol-only GUCs
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Add new protocol message to change GUCs for usage with future protocol-only GUCs