On 6/7/22 10:57 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org> writes:
>> I don't know how frequently issues around "max_stack_depth" being too
>> small are reported -- I'd be curious to know that -- but I don't have
>> any strong arguments against allowing the behavior you describe based on
>> our current docs.
>
> I can't recall any recent gripes on our own lists, but the issue was
> top-of-mind for me after discovering that NetBSD defaults "ulimit -s"
> to 2MB on at least some platforms. That would leave us setting
> max_stack_depth to something less than that, probably about 1.5MB.
Interesting. OK, I'd say let's keep the behavior that's in the patch.
Jonathan