| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | "Joe Conway" <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, "Hackers (PostgreSQL)" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SIGSEGV on cvs tip/7.3.2 |
| Date: | 2003-05-28 18:38:50 |
| Message-ID: | 5526.1054147130@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
>> There's been some past speculation about putting in a function call
>> nesting depth limit, but I haven't been able to think of any reasonable
>> way to estimate a safe limit.
> GUC variable? Hmm...but that would mean that a normal user could still just
> crash the machine...?
Yeah, which makes it a bit pointless :-(. Too bad there's not any
portable way to get some behavior other than SIGSEGV for stack overflow.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Yurgis Baykshtis | 2003-05-28 20:06:35 | Mismatched parentheses when creating a rule with multiple action queries |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-05-28 18:36:45 | Re: [PATCHES] Sequence usage patch |