From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | rekgrpth(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: BUG #18247: Integer overflow leads to negative width |
Date: | 2023-12-15 15:43:03 |
Message-ID: | 2993260.1702654983@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 10:43 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Probably better to clamp tuple width estimates to MaxAllocSize.
>> Anything larger would not correspond to reality anyhow.
> Fair point. How about the attached patch?
We'd need to hit at least build_joinrel_tlist too. Not sure
offhand whether this is enough to cover upper-relation tlists.
As far as the specifics go, is it enough to clamp once? I think
we'd either have to clamp after each addition, or change the
running-sum variables to double and clamp just before storing
into the final width field. The latter seems probably
less error-prone in the long run.
Also, given that we'll need at least three copies of the clamp
rule, I wonder if it's worth inventing a function comparable
to clamp_row_est().
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2023-12-16 09:19:22 | Re: BUG #18240: Undefined behaviour in cash_mul_flt8() and friends |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2023-12-15 15:30:40 | Re: BUG #18247: Integer overflow leads to negative width |