Re: Stack overflow issue

On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 6:35 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2024-04-16 15:45:42 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 1:48 AM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > > On 2024-03-06 14:17:23 +0200, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> > > > 0001 Turn tail recursion into iteration in CommitTransactionCommand()
> > > > I did minor revision of comments and code blocks order to improve the
> > > > readability.
> > >
> > > After sending
> > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20240414223305.m3i5eju6zylabvln%40awork3.anarazel.de
> > > I looked some more at important areas where changes didn't have code
> > > coverage. One thing I noticed was that the "non-internal" part of
> > > AbortCurrentTransaction() is uncovered:
> > > https://anarazel.de/postgres/cov/16-vs-HEAD-2024-04-14/src/backend/access/transam/xact.c.gcov.html#L3403
> > >
> > > Which made me try to understand fefd9a3fed2. I'm a bit confused about why
> > > some parts are handled in CommitCurrentTransaction()/AbortCurrentTransaction()
> > > and others are in the *Internal functions.
> > >
> > > I understand that fefd9a3fed2 needed to remove the recursion in
> > > CommitTransactionCommand()/AbortCurrentTransaction(). But I don't understand
> > > why that means having some code in in the non-internal and some in the
> > > internal functions? Wouldn't it be easier to just have all the state handling
> > > code in the Internal() function and just break after the
> > > CleanupSubTransaction() calls?
> >
> > I'm not sure I correctly get what you mean. Do you think the attached
> > patch matches the direction you're pointing? The patch itself is not
> > final, it requires cleanup and comments revision, just to check the
> > direction.
>
> Something like that, yea. The split does seem less confusing that way to me,
> but also not 100% certain.

Thank you for your feedback. I'm going to go ahead and polish this patch.

------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov