Re: Damage control for planner's get_actual_variable_endpoint() runaway

From: Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Jakub Wartak <jakub(dot)wartak(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Damage control for planner's get_actual_variable_endpoint() runaway
Date: 2022-11-21 15:14:07
Message-ID: CANbhV-GpbgFgucA+QpmH3VwRTTyLSywDxyj69A1Ni6JK1i=K-A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, 21 Nov 2022 at 15:01, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> > What we need is a solution that avoids reading an unbounded number of
> > tuples under any circumstances. I previously suggested using
> > SnapshotAny here, but Tom didn't like that. I'm not sure if there are
> > safety issues there or if Tom was just concerned about the results
> > being misleading. Either way, maybe there's some variant on that theme
> > that could work. For instance, could we teach the index scan to stop
> > if the first 100 tuples that it finds are all invisible? Or to reach
> > at most 1 page, or at most 10 pages, or something?
>
> A hard limit on the number of index pages examined seems like it
> might be a good idea.

Good, that is what the patch does.

> > If we don't find a
> > match, we could either try to use a dead tuple, or we could just
> > return false which, I think, would end up using the value from
> > pg_statistic rather than any updated value.
>
> Yeah, the latter seems like the best bet.

Yes, just breaking out of the loop is enough to use the default value.

> If we do install such a thing, should we undo any of the previous
> changes that backed off the reliability of the result?

Not sure.

--
Simon Riggs http://www.EnterpriseDB.com/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message sirisha chamarthi 2022-11-21 15:18:09 Re: Catalog_xmin is not advanced when a logical slot is lost
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2022-11-21 15:07:25 Re: Allow single table VACUUM in transaction block