| From: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: DBT-3 with SF=20 got failed |
| Date: | 2015-06-11 15:12:21 |
| Message-ID: | 5579A555.1060604@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 06/11/15 16:54, Tom Lane wrote:
> Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> Interestingly, the hash code checks for INT_MAX overflows on a number of
>> places, but does not check for this ...
>
> Yeah, and at least at one time there were checks to prevent the hash
> table request from exceeding MaxAllocSize. Did those get removed by
> somebody?
I think the problem is in this piece of code:
if ((hashtable->nbatch == 1) &&
(hashtable->nbuckets_optimal <= INT_MAX / 2) &&
/* overflow protection */
(ntuples >= (hashtable->nbuckets_optimal * NTUP_PER_BUCKET)))
{
hashtable->nbuckets_optimal *= 2;
hashtable->log2_nbuckets_optimal += 1;
}
ISTM it does not check against the max_pointers (that's only done in
ExecChooseHashTableSize).
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dave Page | 2015-06-11 15:13:54 | Re: The purpose of the core team |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2015-06-11 15:11:48 | Re: 9.5 release notes |