On 9/23/25 03:20, David Rowley wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Sept 2025 at 13:01, Tomas Vondra <to...@vondra.me> wrote:
>>
>> On 9/23/25 02:02, David Rowley wrote:
>>> Ok cool. We're just in the freeze for 18.0 at the moment. Once that's
>>> over, should I take care of this, or do you want to?
>>>
>>
>> Feel free to fix, but I can take care of it once 18 is out the door.
>> It's my bug, after all.
>>
>> BTW ExecHashIncreaseBatchSize needs the same fix, I think.
>
> I think it's probably best you handle this. I didn't notice that one.
> You know this area much better than I do.
>
OK, will do.
>> I wonder how likely the overflow is. AFAICS we'd need nbatch=256k (with
>> 8KB blocks), which is a lot. But with the balancing logic, it'd also
>> mean each batch is about ~2GB. So the whole "hash table" would be about
>> 500GB. Possible, but unlikely.
>
> I think no matter how low the chances of overflow are, the code isn't
> written the way it was intended to be, so it should just be put the
> way it was intended to be without question of the likelihood of
> overflow. Otherwise, we'll just end up with harder to hit bugs which
> could take much longer to [re]discover. Also, in these terms, what's
> unlikely today may not be in the future.
>
I wasn't disputing the validity of the bug. I was just thinking alund
about how likely it's to hit.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
