Re: Occasional 'job table full or recursion limit exceeded'

[Peter Stephenson <pws@xxxxxxx>]

Peter Stephenson wrote:
> "Bart Schaefer" wrote:
> > We should probably consider increasing the default MAXJOB value.
> 
> Maybe there's some mileage in allocating the table at run time?  We would
> still need a maximum but it could be larger without affecting most users.
> Since we usually look it up by number, reallocating it shouldn't be a
> particular problem --- we already effectively do this for the `jobs |'
> hac^H^H^Hworkaround.

(Plus the number could be made configurable at run time.)

-- 
Peter Stephenson <pws@xxxxxxx>                  Software Engineer
CSR Ltd., Science Park, Milton Road,
Cambridge, CB4 0WH, UK                          Tel: +44 (0)1223 692070


**********************************************************************
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or
entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential 
and/or privileged material. 
Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or
taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by 
persons or entities other than the intended recipient is 
prohibited.  
If you received this in error, please contact the sender and 
delete the material from any computer.
**********************************************************************