| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Daniel Verite" <daniel(at)manitou-mail(dot)org> |
| Cc: | "movead(dot)li(at)highgo(dot)ca" <movead(dot)li(at)highgo(dot)ca>, "ashutosh(dot)bapat" <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: A bug when use get_bit() function for a long bytea string |
| Date: | 2020-04-02 20:04:06 |
| Message-ID: | 563.1585857846@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Daniel Verite" <daniel(at)manitou-mail(dot)org> writes:
> These 2 tests need to allocate big chunks of contiguous memory, so they
> might fail for lack of memory on tiny machines, and even when not failing,
> they're pretty slow to run. Are they worth the trouble?
Yeah, I'd noticed those on previous readings of the patch. They'd almost
certainly fail on some of our older/smaller buildfarm members, so they're
not getting committed, even if they didn't require multiple seconds apiece
to run (even on a machine with plenty of memory). It's useful to have
them for initial testing though.
It'd be great if there was a way to test get_bit/set_bit on large
indexes without materializing a couple of multi-hundred-MB objects.
Can't think of one offhand though.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2020-04-02 20:04:12 | Re: snapshot too old issues, first around wraparound and then more. |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2020-04-02 19:47:50 | Re: backup manifests |