Re: B-Tree support function number 3 (strxfrm() optimization)

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: B-Tree support function number 3 (strxfrm() optimization)
Date: 2014-08-14 16:13:17
Message-ID: CA+TgmoYbgGG-8WLD8J_2_AK22Pkx-QZeRMzKRvr3eWY5c8UctQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Gah. Hit send to soon. Also, as much as I'd prefer to avoid
>> relitigating the absolutely stupid debate about how to expand the
>> buffers, this is no good:
>>
>> + tss->buflen1 = Max(len1 + 1, tss->buflen1 * 2);
>>
>> If the first expansion is for a string >512MB and the second string is
>> longer than the first, this will exceed MaxAllocSize and error out.
>
> Fair point. I think this problem is already present in a few existing
> places, but it shouldn't be. I suggest this remediation:
>
>> + tss->buflen1 = Max(len1 + 1, Min(tss->buflen1 * 2, (int) MaxAllocSize));
>
> I too would very much prefer to not repeat that debate. :-)

Committed that way. As the patch is by and large the same as what I
submitted for this originally, I credited myself as first author and
you as second author. I hope that seems fair.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2014-08-14 16:21:38 Re: Reporting the commit LSN at commit time
Previous Message Tom Lane 2014-08-14 16:12:44 Re: 9.5: Memory-bounded HashAgg