Re: Increase value of OUTER_VAR

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Andrey V(dot) Lepikhov" <a(dot)lepikhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Increase value of OUTER_VAR
Date: 2021-07-02 18:23:40
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Here's a more fleshed-out version of this patch. I ran around and
fixed all the places where INNER_VAR etc. were being assigned directly to
a variable or parameter of type Index, and also grepped for 'Index.*varno'
to find suspicious declarations. (I didn't change every last instance
of the latter though; just places that could possibly be looking at
post-setrefs.c Vars.)

I concluded that we don't really need to change the type of
CurrentOfExpr.cvarno, because that's never set to a special value.

The main thing I remain concerned about is whether there are more
places like set_pathtarget_cost_width(), where we could be making
an inequality comparison on "varno" that would now be wrong.
I tried to catch this by enabling -Wsign-compare and -Wsign-conversion,
but that produced so many thousands of uninteresting warnings that
I soon gave up. I'm not sure there's any good way to catch remaining
places like that except to commit the patch and wait for trouble

So I'm inclined to propose pushing this and seeing what happens.

regards, tom lane

Attachment Content-Type Size
remove-64k-rangetable-limit-1.patch text/x-diff 16.0 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ranier Vilela 2021-07-02 18:48:22 Re: Numeric multiplication overflow errors
Previous Message Ranier Vilela 2021-07-02 18:12:08 Re: Signed vs. Unsigned (some)