Teodor Sigaev <teo...@sigaev.ru> writes: >> Are you sure this is safe, Teodor? I don't have time to study the >> patch in detail, but offhand I think that it might have been better to >> make allocatedMemory of type int64, just like the tuplesort.c memory >> accounting variables are post-MaxAllocHuge. It's not obvious to me >> that this variable isn't allowed to occasionally become negative, just >> like in tuplesort.c. It looks like that *might* be true -- ginbulk.c >> may let allocatedMemory go negative for a period, which would now be >> broken.
> It could not be negative - subtruction is doing only around repalloc call, in > all other places it only grows. As long as we're certain of that, Size seems like the appropriate field type. But I wonder if it'd be worth adding an assert to the subtraction steps, ie Assert(accum->allocatedMemory >= delta); accum->allocatedMemory -= delta; regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers