Sounds like a great approach to me. If it doesn't work, we will find
out during beta testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Lane wrote:
> We've had a couple of complaints in the past about recursive functions
> crashing the server by overflowing the C execution stack. There is a
> GUC variable max_expr_depth that is intended to prevent this sort of
> problem for the particular case of overly complex arithmetic
> expressions, but it's difficult to apply a similar solution to function
> calls. A function nesting depth limit would necessarily be pretty
> arbitrary, since different functions might use very different amounts of
> stack space.
>
> It occurred to me today that it would not be difficult to implement a
> direct check on the physical size of the execution stack. We could have
> PostgresMain do this:
>
> /* global variables: */
> char *stack_base_ptr;
> int max_stack_size; /* settable through GUC */
>
> PostgresMain(...)
> {
> char stack_base_loc;
>
> stack_base_ptr = &stack_base_loc;
>
> ... server main loop here ...
> }
>
> Then, in key recursive routines such as ExecQual, add a stack depth test
> that looks like
>
> void check_stack_depth(void)
> {
> char stack_top_loc;
>
> if (abs(stack_base_ptr - &stack_top_loc) > max_stack_size)
> elog(ERROR, "Stack depth limit exceeded");
> }
>
> Essentially we're measuring the distance between the local variables of
> PostgresMain and those of the current recursive routine. (The abs()
> operation is needed since the stack grows up on some machines and down
> on others.)
>
> Now, instead of a max_expr_depth variable that no one really knows how
> to set intelligently, we have a max_stack_size variable that we can tell
> people exactly how to set: a megabyte or so less than your "ulimit -s"
> value should work fine for most cases. And it works for everything;
> recursive function calls, whatever.
>
> I imagine that somewhere in the fine print of the ANSI C standard, it
> says that this maneuver doesn't give well-defined results --- but I
> cannot think of any platform where it wouldn't work.
>
> Comments?
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
> (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
>
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
