|From:||Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>|
|To:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|Cc:||Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Hongxu Ma <interma(at)outlook(dot)com>, Jelte Fennema <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: PSQL error: total cell count of XXX exceeded|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On 2023-Sep-12, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm more than a bit skeptical about trying to do something about this,
> simply because this range of query result sizes is far past what is
> practical. The OP clearly hasn't tested his patch on actually
> overflowing query results, and I don't care to either.
I think we're bound to hit this limit at some point in the future, and
it seems easy enough to solve. I propose the attached, which is pretty
much what Hongxu last submitted, with some minor changes.
Having this make a difference requires some 128GB of RAM, so it's not a
piece of cake, but it's an amount that can be reasonably expected to be
physically installed in real machines nowadays.
(I first thought we could just use pg_mul_s32_overflow during
printTableInit and raise an error if that returns true, but that just
postpones the problem.)
Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
Subversion to GIT: the shortest path to happiness I've ever heard of
|Next Message||Robert Haas||2023-11-20 20:51:33||Re: Partial aggregates pushdown|
|Previous Message||Andres Freund||2023-11-20 20:41:10||Re: Add recovery to pg_control and remove backup_label|