Обсуждение: docs: outdated reference to recursive expression evaluation
In confg.sgml, in the section about max_stack_depth, there's this sentence: "The safety margin is needed because the stack depth is not checked in every routine in the server, but only in key potentially-recursive routines such as expression evaluation." Since the change in expression evaluation in v10, there's probably a better example of recursive routines, but I'm not sure what that would be. -John Naylor
John Naylor <jcnaylor@gmail.com> writes: > In confg.sgml, in the section about max_stack_depth, there's this sentence: > "The safety margin is needed because the stack depth is not checked in > every routine in the server, but only in key potentially-recursive > routines such as expression evaluation." > Since the change in expression evaluation in v10, there's probably a > better example of recursive routines, but I'm not sure what that would > be. We could say "expression compilation" and it'd still be valid. Or just drop the last four words altogether. I don't think we want to expend the verbiage to be more precise here, since it's only a tangential point. BTW, while looking at this I noted that copyfuncs.c has a check_stack_depth call but outfuncs, readfuncs, equalfuncs don't. Surely that's not good. regards, tom lane
On 12/8/18, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > John Naylor <jcnaylor@gmail.com> writes: >> In confg.sgml, in the section about max_stack_depth, there's this >> sentence: >> "The safety margin is needed because the stack depth is not checked in >> every routine in the server, but only in key potentially-recursive >> routines such as expression evaluation." > >> Since the change in expression evaluation in v10, there's probably a >> better example of recursive routines, but I'm not sure what that would >> be. > > We could say "expression compilation" and it'd still be valid. Or just > drop the last four words altogether. I don't think we want to expend the > verbiage to be more precise here, since it's only a tangential point. I'm inclined to agree. If you like, here's a patch to leave out the example. -John Naylor
Вложения
John Naylor <jcnaylor@gmail.com> writes: > On 12/8/18, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> We could say "expression compilation" and it'd still be valid. Or just >> drop the last four words altogether. I don't think we want to expend the >> verbiage to be more precise here, since it's only a tangential point. > I'm inclined to agree. If you like, here's a patch to leave out the example. Pushed to HEAD (didn't seem worth back-patching, though). regards, tom lane