| From: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Can rs_cindex be < 0 for bitmap heap scans? |
| Date: | 2024-12-20 14:45:47 |
| Message-ID: | CAAKRu_Y_-sXq3YfZuMAm11=rqAQceUCwhb5122Lo+tq01EZdPw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 9:36 PM Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2024 at 7:50 AM Melanie Plageman
> <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Looks correct to me.
>
> BTW, I kind of doubt that the overflow risk fixed in 28328ec87 is a
> real issue in real-world scenarios. Is it realistically possible to
> have more than INT_MAX tuples fit on one heap page?
>
> If it is, then the statement below could also be prone to overflow.
>
> uint32 mid = (start + end) / 2;
>
> Maybe you want to change it to:
>
> uint32 mid = start + (end - start) / 2;
I've done this and pushed.
Thanks to you and Ranier for your help in identifying and fixing this!
- Melanie
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2024-12-20 15:23:33 | Re: pure parsers and reentrant scanners |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2024-12-20 14:29:40 | Re: pure parsers and reentrant scanners |