Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Adjust OLDSERXID_MAX_PAGE based on BLCKSZ.
От | Heikki Linnakangas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Adjust OLDSERXID_MAX_PAGE based on BLCKSZ. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4E171AC3.6080009@enterprisedb.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Adjust OLDSERXID_MAX_PAGE based on BLCKSZ. (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Adjust OLDSERXID_MAX_PAGE based
on BLCKSZ.
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 08.07.2011 17:29, Tom Lane wrote: > Heikki Linnakangas<heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> writes: >> On 08.07.2011 15:22, Kevin Grittner wrote: >>> Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >>>> I'm getting a bunch of warnings on Windows related to this: >>>> .\src\backend\storage\lmgr\predicate.c(768): warning C4307: '+' : >>>> integral constant overflow > >>> The part of the expression which is probably causing this: >>> >>> (MaxTransactionId + 1) / OLDSERXID_ENTRIESPERPAGE - 1 >>> >>> Which I fear may not be getting into overflow which will not do the >>> right thing even where there is no warning. :-( >>> >>> Would it be safe to assume that integer division would do the right >>> thing if we drop both of the "off by one" adjustments and use?: >>> >>> MaxTransactionId / OLDSERXID_ENTRIESPERPAGE > >> Hmm, that seems more correct to me anyway. We are trying to calculate >> which page xid MaxTransactionId would be stored on, if the SLRU didn't >> have a size limit. You calculate that with simply MaxTransactionId / >> OLDSERXID_ENTRIESPERPAGE. > > So, what are the consequences if a compiler allows the expression to > overflow to zero? Does this mean that beta3 is dangerously broken? The whole expression was this: > /* > * Set maximum pages based on the lesser of the number needed to track all > * transactions and the maximum that SLRU supports. > */ > #define OLDSERXID_MAX_PAGE Min(SLRU_PAGES_PER_SEGMENT * 0x10000 - 1, \ > (MaxTransactionId + 1) / OLDSERXID_ENTRIESPERPAGE - 1) So if MaxTransactionId+1 overflows to zero, OLDSERXID_MAX_PAGE becomes -1. Or a very high value, if the result of that is unsigned, as at least MSVC seems to interpret it given the other warning I got. If it's interpreted as a large unsigned value, then the SLRU_PAGES_PER_SEGMENT * 0x10000 - 1 value wins. That's what what we had prior to this patch, in beta2, so we're back to square one. If it's interpreted as signed -1, then bad things will happen as soon as the SLRU is used. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: