Re: [HACKERS] Maximum function call nesting depth for regression tests

2010-11-01 Thread Tom Lane
I wrote: I haven't looked to see if any of these have an excessive amount of local variables. I poked through the call stack and found that the only function in this nest that seems to have a large amount of local variables is ExecMakeFunctionResult(). The space hog there is the local

Re: [HACKERS] Maximum function call nesting depth for regression tests

2010-10-31 Thread Robert Haas
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 10:47 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: A few days ago I added a regression test that involves a plpgsql function calling a sql function, which recurses back to the plpgsql function, etc, to a depth of 10 cycles (ie 10 plpgsql function calls and 10 sql function

Re: [HACKERS] Maximum function call nesting depth for regression tests

2010-10-31 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 10:47 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: I don't especially care for choice #1.  To me, one of the things that the regression tests ought to flag is whether a machine is so limited that reasonable coding might fail.  If you

[HACKERS] Maximum function call nesting depth for regression tests

2010-10-30 Thread Tom Lane
A few days ago I added a regression test that involves a plpgsql function calling a sql function, which recurses back to the plpgsql function, etc, to a depth of 10 cycles (ie 10 plpgsql function calls and 10 sql function calls). There are three buildfarm members that are failing with stack depth