Re: optimizer cost calculation problem

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: optimizer cost calculation problem
Date: 2003-03-31 23:04:47
Message-ID: 25900.1049151887@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> Kenji Sugita has identified a problem with cost_sort() in costsize.c.
> In the following code fragment, sortmembytes is defined as long. So
> double nruns = nbytes / (sortmembytes * 2);
> may cause an integer overflow if sortmembytes exceeds 2^30, which in
> turn make optimizer to produce wrong query plan(this actually happned
> in a large PostgreSQL installation which has tons of memory).

I find it really really hard to believe that it's wise to run with
sort_mem exceeding 2 gig ;-). Does that installation have so much
RAM that it can afford to run multiple many-Gb sorts concurrently?

This is far from being the only place that multiplies SortMem by 1024.
My inclination is that a safer fix is to alter guc.c's entry for
SortMem to establish a maximum value of INT_MAX/1024 for the variable.

Probably some of the other GUC variables like shared_buffers ought to
have overflow-related maxima established, too.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ed L. 2003-03-31 23:15:43 Re: index corruption?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2003-03-31 22:54:22 Re: index corruption?