From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Avoid a possible overflow (src/backend/utils/sort/logtape.c) |
Date: | 2023-08-25 01:55:00 |
Message-ID: | CAH2-WznMTnNcOuwnO9jEXdTH9XtVdfDbzzCt3haiNg6fjHr-pg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 6:18 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> Still that looks entirely different to me. Here we have a problem
> where the number of free blocks stored may cause an overflow in the
> internal routine retrieving a free block, but your other thread
> is about long being not enough on Windows.
I must have seen logtape.c, windows, and long together on this thread,
and incorrectly surmised that it was exactly the same issue as before.
I now see that the only sense in which Windows is relevant is that
Windows happens to not have the same inconsistency. Windows is
consistently wrong.
So, yeah, I guess it's a different issue. Practically speaking it
should be treated as a separate issue, in any case. Since, as you
pointed out, there is no reason to not just fix this while
backpatching.
--
Peter Geoghegan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2023-08-25 02:02:40 | Re: Avoid a possible overflow (src/backend/utils/sort/logtape.c) |
Previous Message | David Rowley | 2023-08-25 01:43:47 | Re: Avoid a possible overflow (src/backend/utils/sort/logtape.c) |