| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
| Cc: | Egor Chindyaskin <kyzevan23(at)mail(dot)ru>, Sascha Kuhl <yogidabanli(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Stack overflow issue |
| Date: | 2024-01-12 21:00:35 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYTfXGJMWDFRisKCEVBr07xsyecA6cNQTnti305MbcsDg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 10:12 AM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> wrote:
> Here's one goto-free attempt. It adds a local loop to where the
> recursion was, so that if you have a chain of subtransactions that need
> to be aborted in CommitTransactionCommand, they are aborted iteratively.
> The TBLOCK_SUBCOMMIT case already had such a loop.
>
> I added a couple of comments in the patch marked with "REVIEWER NOTE",
> to explain why I changed some things. They are to be removed before
> committing.
>
> I'm not sure if this is better than a goto. In fact, even if we commit
> this, I think I'd still prefer to replace the remaining recursive calls
> with a goto. Recursion feels a weird to me, when we're unwinding the
> states from the stack as we go.
I'm not able to quickly verify whether this version is correct, but I
do think the code looks nicer this way.
I understand that's a question of opinion rather than fact, though.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jacob Burroughs | 2024-01-12 21:02:47 | Re: libpq compression (part 3) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2024-01-12 20:47:13 | Re: Recovering from detoast-related catcache invalidations |