| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Potential stack overflow in incremental base backup |
| Date: | 2024-03-06 11:29:18 |
| Message-ID: | 202403061129.gnbmxwwn5lem@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2024-Mar-06, Thomas Munro wrote:
> Even on the heap, 16GB is too much to assume we can allocate during a
> base backup. I don't claim that's a real-world problem for
> incremental backup right now in master, because I don't have any
> evidence that anyone ever really uses --with-segsize (do they?), but
> if we make it an initdb option it will be more popular and this will
> become a problem. Hmm.
Would it work to use a radix tree from the patchset at
https://postgr.es/m/CANWCAZb43ZNRK03bzftnVRAfHzNGzH26sjc0Ep-sj8+w20VzSg@mail.gmail.com
?
--
Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"E pur si muove" (Galileo Galilei)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Himanshu Upadhyaya | 2024-03-06 11:58:06 | Re: remaining sql/json patches |
| Previous Message | John Naylor | 2024-03-06 11:25:21 | Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum |