Re: Small and unlikely overflow hazard in bms_next_member()

From: David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Small and unlikely overflow hazard in bms_next_member()
Date: 2026-04-13 02:43:01
Message-ID: CAApHDvoTeKuo+bs2g8UXbZ9jDvbEURPFAaCaXfEm+2Xmc5i9qw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, 13 Apr 2026 at 12:24, Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I just tried test_bms_next3 on my MacBook, looks like patched bms_prev_member is much faster there. I ran about 10 times, the results were consistent.

Thanks. I saw similar results.

David

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Chao Li 2026-04-13 02:53:26 Re: quoteOneName() inconsistency with quote_all_identifiers — replacement API proposed
Previous Message Richard Guo 2026-04-13 02:35:52 Re: Bug: Rule actions see wrong values for generated columns (NEW.gen reads OLD value)