From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru> |
Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: "Allow usage of huge maintenance_work_mem for GIN build" patch |
Date: | 2016-05-30 16:30:23 |
Message-ID: | 12419.1464625823@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru> writes:
>> Are you sure this is safe, Teodor? I don't have time to study the
>> patch in detail, but offhand I think that it might have been better to
>> make allocatedMemory of type int64, just like the tuplesort.c memory
>> accounting variables are post-MaxAllocHuge. It's not obvious to me
>> that this variable isn't allowed to occasionally become negative, just
>> like in tuplesort.c. It looks like that *might* be true -- ginbulk.c
>> may let allocatedMemory go negative for a period, which would now be
>> broken.
> It could not be negative - subtruction is doing only around repalloc call, in
> all other places it only grows.
As long as we're certain of that, Size seems like the appropriate field
type. But I wonder if it'd be worth adding an assert to the subtraction
steps, ie
Assert(accum->allocatedMemory >= delta);
accum->allocatedMemory -= delta;
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-05-30 16:37:49 | Re: IPv6 link-local addresses and init data type |
Previous Message | David Fetter | 2016-05-30 15:38:23 | PostgreSQL Weekly News Survey |