Re: Whether to back-patch fix for aggregate transtype width estimates
От | Tomas Vondra |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Whether to back-patch fix for aggregate transtype width estimates |
Дата | |
Msg-id | e8b2104f-9e50-3c77-5991-dd061752664d@2ndquadrant.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Whether to back-patch fix for aggregate transtype width estimates (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 06/18/2016 06:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: >> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 10:41 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> Ordinarily I'd just summarily back-patch a fix, but that commit shipped >>> in 9.0, which means it's been broken a long time. I'm worried that >>> back-patching a change might be more likely to destabilize plan choices >>> than to do anything anybody's happy about. > >> I suspect the consequences here aren't too bad, or someone would have >> noticed by now. So I would be tempted to leave it alone in >> back-branches. But I might change my mind if it's actually awful... > > Well, you can construct scenarios where it would cause failures. > Consider "SELECT max(varchar_col) FROM tab GROUP BY foo". The planner > will need to estimate the size of the hash table to decide whether > hash-style aggregation is OK. In all 8.x releases, it would use the > varchar_col's typmod (max width) to determine the per-aggregate trans > value space requirement. In 9.x, that's broken and it falls back to > get_typavgwidth's default guess of 32 bytes. If what you've actually > got is, say, varchar(255) and most of the entries actually approach > that length, this could result in a drastic underestimate, possibly > leading to OOM from hash table growth. > > However, I can't recall many field reports that seem to match that > theory, so in practice it's probably pretty rare. It's certainly not > going to help people who declare their wide columns as "text" > not "varchar(n)". All the HashAgg + OOM reports I can recall (both from community or through support) were caused by poor cardinality estimates, i.e. not related to this at all. The only exception was the array_agg() thing we fixed a while ago, and that was primarily due to using per-group memory contexts. So also unrelated to this. So while I'm a fan of improving our planning, I'd lean towards not back-patching this particular bit. regards -- Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: