On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 12:27:08AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
>> Thanks for the pointer, I'll double-check that. Some of the locations
>> of stack depth checks proposed involve performance-sensitive code
>> paths, though, like mcxt.c :/
>
> I hadn't looked at the patch yet, but ... mcxt.c? How is that recursive?
> Even if there is some path that recurses through that, wouldn't the
> check be better placed in a less-hot part of the loop?
Yeah, that's my impression. I'll switch to the other thread after
looking more in details.
--
Michael
