Re: Fdw batch insert error out when set batch_size > 65535

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, "houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Fdw batch insert error out when set batch_size > 65535
Date: 2023-07-02 06:09:49
Message-ID: 20230702060949.mh4k7ukle2ain47j@awork3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2021-06-11 18:44:28 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> > There's one caveat, though - for regular builds the slowdown is pretty
> > much eliminated. But with valgrind it's still considerably slower. For
> > postgres_fdw the "make check" used to take ~5 minutes for me, now it
> > takes >1h. And yes, this is entirely due to the new test case which is
> > generating / inserting 70k rows. So maybe the test case is not worth it
> > after all, and we should get rid of it.
>
> I bet the CLOBBER_CACHE animals won't like it much either.
>
> I suggest what we do is leave it in place for long enough to get
> a round of reports from those slow animals, and then (assuming
> those reports are positive) drop the test.

I just encountered this test because it doesn't succeed on a 32bit system with
address sanitizer enabled - it runs out of memory. At that point there are
"just" 29895 parameters parsed...

It's also the slowest step on skink (valgrind animal), taking nearly an hour.

I think two years later is long enough to have some confidence in this being
fixed?

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dean Rasheed 2023-07-02 10:29:29 Re: Supporting MERGE on updatable views
Previous Message Noah Misch 2023-07-02 05:45:31 Re: Should CSV parsing be stricter about mid-field quotes?