From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Bannert Matthias" <bannert(at)kof(dot)ethz(dot)ch> |
Cc: | Charles Clavadetscher <clavadetscher(at)swisspug(dot)org>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: max_stack_depth problem though query is substantially smaller |
Date: | 2016-04-08 19:39:41 |
Message-ID: | 27301.1460144381@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
"Bannert Matthias" <bannert(at)kof(dot)ethz(dot)ch> writes:
> Thanks for your reply. I do think it is rather a postgres than an R issue, here's why:
> a) R simply puts an SQL string together. What Charles had posted was an excerpt of that string.
> Basically we have 1.7 MB of that string. Everything else is equal just the hstore contains 40K key value pairs.
Well, as a test I ran a query that included an hstore literal with 4
million key/value pairs (a bit shy of 70MB of query text). I didn't see
any misbehavior on a machine with 2MB max_stack_depth. So there's
something else going on in your situation.
I concur with the suggestion to try to get a stack backtrace from the
point of the error. Setting a breakpoint at errfinish() is usually
an effective strategy when you know that the query will provoke a SQL
error report.
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Generating_a_stack_trace_of_a_PostgreSQL_backend
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bannert Matthias | 2016-04-08 19:52:26 | Re: max_stack_depth problem though query is substantially smaller |
Previous Message | Christophe Pettus | 2016-04-08 19:15:27 | pg_upgrade with an extension name change |