| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrey Borodin <amborodin86(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Nikolai <pgnickb(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Silent overflow of interval type |
| Date: | 2023-02-16 00:12:45 |
| Message-ID: | 2155716.1676506365@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrey Borodin <amborodin86(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 7:08 AM Nikolai <pgnickb(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> The patch attached simply throws an error when an overflow is
>> detected. However I'm not sure this is a reasonable approach for a
>> code path that could be very hot in some workloads.
> Given the extraordinary amount of overflow checks in the nearby code
> of timestamp.c, I'd say that this case should not be an exception.
Yeah, I don't think this would create a performance problem, at least not
if you're using a compiler that implements pg_sub_s64_overflow reasonably.
(And if you're not, and this bugs you, the answer is to get a better
compiler.)
> By chance did you look at all other nearby cases, is it the only place
> with overflow?
That was my immediate reaction as well.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2023-02-16 00:34:51 | Re: Normalization of utility queries in pg_stat_statements |
| Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2023-02-16 00:06:59 | Re: DDL result is lost by CREATE DATABASE with WAL_LOG strategy |