| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PATCH: Using BRIN indexes for sorted output |
| Date: | 2023-02-24 08:39:16 |
| Message-ID: | 20230224083916.tn4ikos65f4ep2od@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2023-Feb-23, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
> > + for (heapBlk = 0; heapBlk < nblocks; heapBlk += pagesPerRange)
>
> I am not familiar with the frequency of max-sized relations, but this
> would go into an infinite loop for pagesPerRange values >1 for
> max-sized relations due to BlockNumber wraparound. I think there
> should be some additional overflow checks here.
They are definitely not very common -- BlockNumber wraps around at 32 TB
IIUC. But yeah, I guess it is a possibility, and perhaps we should find
a way to write these loops in a more robust manner.
--
Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"World domination is proceeding according to plan" (Andrew Morton)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2023-02-24 08:40:27 | Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum |
| Previous Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2023-02-24 07:58:20 | Re: New "blob" re-introduced? |