From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Yura Sokolov <y(dot)sokolov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Bug in huge simplehash |
Date: | 2021-08-13 10:15:43 |
Message-ID: | 20210813101543.bkncnioyqi472man@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2021-08-13 12:44:17 +0300, Yura Sokolov wrote:
> Andres Freund писал 2021-08-13 12:21:
> > Any chance you'd write a test for simplehash with such huge amount of
> > values? It'd require a small bit of trickery to be practical. On systems
> > with MAP_NORESERVE it should be feasible.
>
> Which way C structures should be tested in postgres?
> dynahash/simplhash - do they have any tests currently?
> I'll do if hint is given.
We don't have a great way right now :(. I think the best is to have a
SQL callable function that uses some API. See e.g. test_atomic_ops() et
al in src/test/regress/regress.c
> > > static inline void
> > > -SH_COMPUTE_PARAMETERS(SH_TYPE * tb, uint32 newsize)
> > > +SH_COMPUTE_PARAMETERS(SH_TYPE * tb, uint64 newsize)
> > > {
> > > uint64 size;
> > >
> > > @@ -322,11 +322,7 @@ SH_COMPUTE_PARAMETERS(SH_TYPE * tb, uint32
> > > newsize)
> > >
> > > /* now set size */
> > > tb->size = size;
> > > -
> > > - if (tb->size == SH_MAX_SIZE)
> > > - tb->sizemask = 0;
> > > - else
> > > - tb->sizemask = tb->size - 1;
> > > + tb->sizemask = (uint32)(size - 1);
> >
> > ISTM using ~0 would be nicer here?
>
> I don't think so.
> To be rigid it should be `~(uint32)0`.
> But I believe it doesn't differ from `tb->sizemask = (uint32)(size - 1)`
> that is landed with patch, therefore why `if` is needed?
Personally I find it more obvious to understand the intended behaviour
with ~0 (i.e. all bits set) than with a width truncation.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ram Charan Kallem | 2021-08-13 10:20:41 | RE: Multiple Postgres process are running in background |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2021-08-13 10:08:11 | Re: pg_stat_bgwriter.buffers_backend is pretty meaningless (and more?) |