| From: | Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: On disable_cost |
| Date: | 2024-09-06 09:00:00 |
| Message-ID: | a9b7231d-68bc-f117-a07c-96688f3e6aef@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello Robert,
21.08.2024 17:29, Robert Haas wrote:
> I went ahead and committed these patches. ...
Please take a look at the following code:
static void
label_sort_with_costsize(PlannerInfo *root, Sort *plan, double limit_tuples)
{
...
cost_sort(&sort_path, root, NIL,
lefttree->total_cost,
plan->plan.disabled_nodes,
lefttree->plan_rows,
lefttree->plan_width,
0.0,
work_mem,
limit_tuples);
Given the cost_sort() declaration:
void
cost_sort(Path *path, PlannerInfo *root,
List *pathkeys, int input_disabled_nodes,
Cost input_cost, double tuples, int width,
Cost comparison_cost, int sort_mem,
double limit_tuples)
Aren't the input_disabled_nodes and input_cost arguments swapped in the
above call?
(I've discovered this with UBSan, which complained
createplan.c:5457:6: runtime error: 4.40465e+09 is outside the range of representable values of type 'int'
while executing a query with a large estimated cost.)
Best regards,
Alexander
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Richard Guo | 2024-09-06 09:27:22 | Re: On disable_cost |
| Previous Message | Ajin Cherian | 2024-09-06 08:35:14 | Re: Conflict Detection and Resolution |