On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:35:42PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote: > On Monday 19 July 2010 20:32:49 Andres Freund wrote: > > On Monday 19 July 2010 20:19:35 Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > > > On 19/07/10 20:58, Andres Freund wrote: > > > > On Monday 19 July 2010 19:57:13 Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > >> Excerpts from Andres Freund's message of lun jul 19 11:58:06 -0400 > 2010: > > > >>> It seems easy enough to throw a check_stack_depth() in there - > > > >>> survives make check here. > > > >> > > > >> I wonder if it would work to deal with the problem non-recursively > > > >> instead. We don't impose subxact depth restrictions elsewhere, why > > > >> start now? > > > > > > > > It looks trivial enough, but whats the point? > > > > > > To support more than <insert abitrary limit here> subtransactions, > > > obviously. > > > > Well. I got that far. But why is that something worthy of support? > > For one I have a hard time imaging a sensible use case, for another doing > > anything in that deeply nested transactions seems to gets really slow (the > > chain of transactions gets walked at some places for one thing, there seem > > to be others). > > > > If want I can write a patch for that as well, seems to be trivial enough. > Updated patch attached. hm. I dont want to push - just to ask: Is any comitter looking either at the patch or the bug?
Greetings, Andres -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
