| 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: | 2026-04-12 12:33:04 |
| Message-ID: | CAApHDvpVKtgtNsXXKECi4KhzH3JpN2k62tg=EcYmsEA+RsKj+A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 6 Apr 2026 at 14:01, Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Apr 4, 2026, at 11:30, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Not quite perfect as a set made first as a single word set that later
> > becomes a multi-word set will be double counted. The number of
> > operations on the sets is likely more important anyway, not the number
> > of sets being created. The point is, multi-word sets are rare for most
> > workloads.
> >
>
> What tests did you run after adding the logs to collect the data? This is a method I might borrow in the future for similar investigations.
"make check" then grep regression.diffs for the NOTICE message and
pipe to "wc -l"
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexander Lakhin | 2026-04-12 13:00:00 | Re: Non-compliant SASLprep implementation for ASCII characters |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2026-04-12 11:47:10 | Re: Non-compliant SASLprep implementation for ASCII characters |