Re: lots of values for IN() clause

But I do not understand why the IN list has to make so many recursive
calls???

I know if it was possible, it'd have been done already... but can 'making it
iterative' (whatever 'it' stands for) be reconsidered?

--
gurjeet[(dot)singh](at)EnterpriseDB(dot)com
singh(dot)gurjeet(at){ gmail | hotmail | yahoo }.com

On 11/2/06, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
>
> I notice it crashes with max_stack_depth set to 8173, but correctly
> detects the error with max_stack_depth set to 8172. The doc suggests a
> safety margin of "a megabyte or so", so I think we are conforming to our
> docs here.
>
> Tom recently added a check for getrlimit(RLIMIT_STACK), but I don't know
> if that considered the "megabyte or so". *peeks the code* Yeah,
> there's a 512 kb "daylight", but there's also an absolute maximum of
> 2MB.
>