From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | pgsql-bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Hans van Kranenburg <hans(dot)van(dot)kranenburg(at)mendix(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: BUG #5566: High levels of savepoint nesting trigger stack overflow in AssignTransactionId |
Date: | 2010-07-19 18:23:10 |
Message-ID: | 1279563717-sup-737@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Excerpts from Andres Freund's message of lun jul 19 13:58:30 -0400 2010:
> Hi,
>
> On Monday 19 July 2010 19:57:13 Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Excerpts from Andres Freund's message of lun jul 19 11:58:06 -0400 2010:
> > > On Monday 19 July 2010 17:26:25 Hans van Kranenburg wrote:
> > > > When issuing an update statement in a transaction with ~30800 levels of
> > > > savepoint nesting, (which is insane, but possible), postgresql
> > > > segfaults due to a stack overflow in the AssignTransactionId function,
> > > > which recursively assign transaction ids to parent transactions.
> > >
> > > It seems easy enough to throw a check_stack_depth() in there - survives
> > > make check here.
> >
> > I wonder if it would work to deal with the problem non-recursively
> > instead. We don't impose subxact depth restrictions elsewhere, why
> > start now?
> It looks trivial enough, but whats the point?
Avoid imposing unnecessary restrictions.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2010-07-19 18:32:49 | Re: BUG #5566: High levels of savepoint nesting trigger stack overflow in AssignTransactionId |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-07-19 18:19:35 | Re: BUG #5566: High levels of savepoint nesting trigger stack overflow in AssignTransactionId |