| 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 |
| Date: | 2023-11-20 20:48:35 |
| Message-ID: | 202311202048.n2a3dsjldhne@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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
(Alexey Klyukin)
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v5-0001-Avoid-overflow-in-fe_utils-printTable-API.patch | text/x-diff | 3.7 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |