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 Functio

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

2010-10-31 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas writes: > On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 10:47 PM, Tom Lane 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 can't do twenty or so >> levels

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 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 calls).  There are