| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, 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 18:19:35 |
| Message-ID: | 4C449737.5050300@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On 19/07/10 20:58, Andres Freund wrote:
> 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?
To support more than <insert abitrary limit here> subtransactions,
obviously.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2010-07-19 18:23:10 | Re: BUG #5566: High levels of savepoint nesting trigger stack overflow in AssignTransactionId |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2010-07-19 17:58:30 | Re: BUG #5566: High levels of savepoint nesting trigger stack overflow in AssignTransactionId |