Re: Potential stack overflow in incremental base backup

On 2024-Mar-06, Thomas Munro wrote:

> Even on the heap, 16GB is too much to assume we can allocate during a
> base backup.  I don't claim that's a real-world problem for
> incremental backup right now in master, because I don't have any
> evidence that anyone ever really uses --with-segsize (do they?), but
> if we make it an initdb option it will be more popular and this will
> become a problem.  Hmm.

Would it work to use a radix tree from the patchset at
https://postgr.es/m/CANWCAZb43ZNRK03bzftnVRAfHzNGzH26sjc0Ep-sj8+w20VzSg@mail.gmail.com
?

-- 
Álvaro Herrera               48°01'N 7°57'E  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"E pur si muove" (Galileo Galilei)