Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2019-02-05 22:53:37 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Isn't this putting much more than needed in the stack? Seems like we
>> could just allocate tupdesc->natts members dynamically. Not sure if we
>> care: it's about 12 kB; maybe considering palloc overhead, using the
>> stack is better.
> "it" being allocating values/nulls on the stack? I think there's plenty
> of places that do that. But it's also worth considering whether the
> relevant piece of code calls more deeply into other code, in which case
> the stack usage might be more problematic.
I think it's OK as long as there's a stack depth check here or somewhere
real close by.
regards, tom lane
