| From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: postmaster segfaults with HUGE table |
| Date: | 2004-11-16 00:54:53 |
| Message-ID: | 1100566493.23420.48.camel@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, 2004-11-14 at 18:29 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Good analysis. We can't check earlier than DefineRelation AFAICS,
> because earlier stages don't know about inherited columns.
>
> On reflection I suspect there are similar issues with SELECTs that have
> more than 64K output columns. This probably has to be guarded against
> in parser/analyze.c.
You're correct -- we also crash on extremely long SELECT statements.
Another variant of the problem would be a CREATE TABLE that inherits
from, say, 70 relations, each of which has 1,000 columns.
Attached is a patch. Not entirely sure that the checks I added are in
the right places, but at any rate this fixes the three identified
problems for me.
-Neil
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| too-many-columns-1.patch | text/x-patch | 2.0 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Neil Conway | 2004-11-16 00:58:07 | Re: postmaster segfaults with HUGE table |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-11-15 21:12:18 | Re: backend died |