ahmed-mez commented on PR #16506: URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/16506#issuecomment-3019500939
Apologies for the delay. I added a commit with a [reproducer test case](https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/16506/commits/1a9584b64349acfea70b6e82dbaabbdeaa625758) as requested. It passes when the `recursive_protection` feature is enabled. The reproducer committed is inspired by an original reproducer I mentioned in the PR description but it's a smaller and simpler plan, without any custom Substrait extensions. Correct me if I'm wrong @alamb: fixing these stack overflows by restructuring the code seems like a massive amount of work as it'd involve rewriting the 30+ recursive functions that the current PR tried to protect with `recursive`. And we can't be 100% sure it'd solve all the stack overflows. Is my understanding of the scope correct? If so, what's the preferred path forward? Perhaps I can close this PR and open an issue so the community can participate in the effort? Do we want to commit the reproducer test case only and mark it ignored (`#[ignore]`) ? -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: github-unsubscr...@datafusion.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: github-unsubscr...@datafusion.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: github-h...@datafusion.apache.org
