Re: Whether to back-patch fix for aggregate transtype width estimates

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
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:

Предыдущее
От: Michael Paquier
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [BUGS] BUG #14199: The pg_ctl status check on server start is not compatible with the silent_mode=on
Следующее
От: Michael Paquier
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver