Re: Damage control for planner's get_actual_variable_endpoint() runaway

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Jakub Wartak <jakub(dot)wartak(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Damage control for planner's get_actual_variable_endpoint() runaway
Date: 2022-11-21 17:37:59
Message-ID: 3216176.1669052279@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> This can't quite be right - isn't this only applying the limit if we found a
> visible tuple?

What it's restricting is the number of heap page fetches, which
might be good enough. We don't have a lot of visibility here
into how many index pages were scanned before returning the next
not-dead index entry, so I'm not sure how hard it'd be to do better.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2022-11-21 17:39:18 Re: Damage control for planner's get_actual_variable_endpoint() runaway
Previous Message Robert Haas 2022-11-21 17:37:34 Re: Damage control for planner's get_actual_variable_endpoint() runaway