Re: BUG #16302: too many range table entries - when count partition table(65538 childs)
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #16302: too many range table entries - when count partition table(65538 childs) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1032.1584456128@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BUG #16302: too many range table entries - when count partitiontable(65538 childs) (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: BUG #16302: too many range table entries - when count partitiontable(65538 childs)
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 9:49 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> We'd have to widen AttrNumber to int32 and find all the places that >> assume it's only 16 bits. (Good luck with testing your way to having >> any confidence in having found them all, so I'm not sure exactly how >> to acquire such confidence.) Maybe someday that will be a profitable >> use of developer effort, but I have to say that I think that day is >> a long way off. > That sounds like a lot of work, but I think AttrNumber is used to > store varattno, and I think varno is typically stored using either > Index or int, both of which are 32 bits. Am I confused? Argh, -ENOCAFFEINE. You're right, AttrNumber is not the relevant type here. There's still an issue of whether anyplace has tried to store a varno in less-than-int, but it seems less likely than I was thinking earlier. > (It doesn't seem like we're all that careful about whether we're using > int, which is signed, or Index, which is unsigned, and we might want > to go around and tighten that up. Yeah, I'd be leery of trying to use that last bit. The cost-benefit ratio on that is *definitely* not attractive. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: