Re: [HACKERS] SIGSEGV on cvs tip/7.3.2
Christopher Kings-Lynne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There's been some past speculation about putting in a function call nesting depth limit, but I haven't been able to think of any reasonable way to estimate a safe limit. GUC variable? Hmm...but that would mean that a normal user could still just crash the machine...? Yeah, which makes it a bit pointless :-(. Too bad there's not any portable way to get some behavior other than SIGSEGV for stack overflow. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [HACKERS] SIGSEGV on cvs tip/7.3.2
There's been some past speculation about putting in a function call nesting depth limit, but I haven't been able to think of any reasonable way to estimate a safe limit. The stack size limit varies a lot across different platforms, and the amount of stack space consumed per PL function call level seems hard to estimate too. We do have a nesting depth limit for expressions, which is intended specifically to avoid stack overflow during expression eval --- but the amount of stack chewed per expression level is relatively small and predictable. GUC variable? Hmm...but that would mean that a normal user could still just crash the machine...? Chris ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
