docs: outdated reference to recursive expression evaluation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
Attachments:
remove-reference-to-expr-eval.patchtext/x-patch; charset=US-ASCII; name=remove-reference-to-expr-eval.patchDownload+5-6
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