From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Greg S <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
Subject: | Re: tuplesort memory usage: grow_memtuples |
Date: | 2012-11-15 19:16:34 |
Message-ID: | CA+Tgmob9t=Y=p7ikay3ugdr+qXJ_Y0FiE1reKpaZw2+zzF7AuA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 15 November 2012 18:13, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Ah, yeah. I wondered in passing about that but forgot to follow up on
>> it. The problem specifically is that the intermediate result
>> memtupsize * newmemtuples might overflow. I believe that the old
>> memtupsize can never be more than 2^26 bytes, because the allocation
>> limit is 1GB and each SortTuple is 16 bytes.
>
> Do you mean the intermediate result of memtupsize * allowedMem?
Yes.
> Oh,
> yeah, that could overflow rather easily on a platform where long is
> only 32-bit.
Or even 64-bit, with really large values of work_mem.
> We're multiplying the entire current allocation size of
> the array by the maximum length. I guess the fact that you didn't spot
> it made me overconfident. :-)
Ha!
So what's next here? Do you want to work on these issue some more?
Or does Jeff? I'd like to see this go in, but I'm not sure I have the
bandwidth to do the legwork myself.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-11-15 19:26:57 | Re: pg_ctl reload -o "...." |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2012-11-15 19:13:58 | Re: tuplesort memory usage: grow_memtuples |