Re: lots of values for IN() clause

["Gurjeet Singh" <singh.gurjeet@xxxxxxxxx>]

But I do not understand why the IN list has to make so many recursive calls???

I know if it was possible, it'd have been done already... but can 'making it iterative' (whatever 'it' stands for) be reconsidered?

--
gurjeet[.singh]@EnterpriseDB.com
singh.gurjeet@{ gmail | hotmail | yahoo }.com

On 11/2/06, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I notice it crashes with max_stack_depth set to 8173, but correctly
detects the error with max_stack_depth set to 8172.  The doc suggests a
safety margin of "a megabyte or so", so I think we are conforming to our
docs here.

Tom recently added a check for getrlimit(RLIMIT_STACK), but I don't know
if that considered the "megabyte or so".  *peeks the code*  Yeah,
there's a 512 kb "daylight", but there's also an absolute maximum of
2MB.