| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tender Wang <tndrwang(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Keyerror Smart <smartkeyerror(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [BUG] hstore integer overflow when constructing large values |
| Date: | 2026-08-17 04:05:22 |
| Message-ID: | aoKIgkA6gxxjgKa8@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 17, 2026 at 11:06:17AM +0800, Tender Wang wrote:
> Given that the rest of the patch is moving allocation-size arithmetic to
> `Size` and `add_size()`/`mul_size()`, I wonder if this should use
> `add_size()` as well.
>
> Perhaps the existing size limits make an overflow there unreachable in
> practice, but using `add_size()` would seem more consistent with the rest
> of this patch.
I was wondering about this part as well, but discarded it as not
reachable in practice. So it should not matter at the end.
The nested calls in hstore_out() feel a bit inelegant as well written
this way. Something in sequential form would feel much easier to
parse, with one line for each add_size involved.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bertrand Drouvot | 2026-08-17 04:43:07 | Re: pgstat: Flush some statistics within running transactions, take 2 |
| Previous Message | shveta malik | 2026-08-17 04:02:41 | Re: Support EXCEPT for TABLES IN SCHEMA publications |