Обсуждение: docs: outdated reference to recursive expression evaluation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

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