Re: pg_dump / copy bugs with "big lines" ?

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Ronan Dunklau <ronan(dot)dunklau(at)dalibo(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_dump / copy bugs with "big lines" ?
Date: 2015-04-08 03:29:08
Message-ID: CAB7nPqSZyHH535q_HvtXzX0cmWregHoJorKHxfLHGRobHCsMrw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> wrote:
>> In any case, I don't think it would be terribly difficult to allow a bit
>> more than 1GB in a StringInfo. Might need to tweak palloc too; ISTR there's
>> some 1GB limits there too.
>
> The point is, those limits are there on purpose. Changing things
> arbitrarily wouldn't be hard, but doing it in a principled way is
> likely to require some thought. For example, in the COPY OUT case,
> presumably what's happening is that we palloc a chunk for each
> individual datum, and then palloc a buffer for the whole row. Now, we
> could let the whole-row buffer be bigger, but maybe it would be better
> not to copy all of the (possibly very large) values for the individual
> columns over into a row buffer before sending it. Some refactoring
> that avoids the need for a potentially massive (1.6TB?) whole-row
> buffer would be better than just deciding to allow it.

I think that something to be aware of is that this is as well going to
require some rethinking of the existing libpq functions that are here
to fetch a row during COPY with PQgetCopyData, to make them able to
fetch chunks of data from one row.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2015-04-08 03:46:02 Re: Parallel Seq Scan
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2015-04-08 03:18:44 Re: "rejected" vs "returned with feedback" in new CF app