|From:||Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>|
|To:||Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>|
|Subject:||Re: pgbench's expression parsing & negative numbers|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
>> - I do not think that updating pgbench arithmetic for managing integer
>> overflows is worth Andres Freund time. My guess is that most
>> script would not trigger client-side overflows, so the change would
>> be a no-op in practice.
> It might not be if you view it in isolation (although I'm not
> convinced). The problem is that it has cost beyond pgbench. Due to
> pgbench's overflow handling
> I can't run make check on a build that has -ftrapv, which found several
> bugs already.
Hmmm. You suggest that integer overflows do occur when running pgbench.
Indeed, this tap test case: "\set maxint debug(:minint - 1)"
Otherwise, some stat counters may overflow on very long runs? Although
overflowing a int64 takes some time...
> I'd be happy if somebody else would tackle the issue, but I don't quite
> see it happening...
I must admit that it is not very high on my may-do list. I'll review it if
it appears, though.
|Next Message||Chapman Flack||2017-12-14 23:12:35||Re: Would a BGW need shmem_access or database_connection to enumerate databases?|
|Previous Message||Chapman Flack||2017-12-14 22:41:24||worker_spi example BGW code GUC tweak|