Skip to content

Set custom sysid 12.11 #2

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: release_12_11
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Conversation

balbaev
Copy link
Owner

@balbaev balbaev commented Jun 9, 2022

No description provided.

@balbaev balbaev changed the title Set custom sysid Set custom sysid 12.11 Jun 9, 2022
balbaev pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 9, 2022
Due to how pg_size_pretty(bigint) was implemented, it's possible that when
given a negative number of bytes that the returning value would not match
the equivalent positive return value when given the equivalent positive
number of bytes.  This was due to two separate issues.

1. The function used bit shifting to convert the number of bytes into
larger units.  The rounding performed by bit shifting is not the same as
dividing.  For example -3 >> 1 = -2, but -3 / 2 = -1.  These two
operations are only equivalent with positive numbers.

2. The half_rounded() macro rounded towards positive infinity.  This meant
that negative numbers rounded towards zero and positive numbers rounded
away from zero.

Here we fix #1 by dividing the values instead of bit shifting.  We fix #2
by adjusting the half_rounded macro always to round away from zero.

Additionally, adjust the pg_size_pretty(numeric) function to be more
explicit that it's using division rather than bit shifting.  A casual
observer might have believed bit shifting was used due to a static
function being named numeric_shift_right.  However, that function was
calculating the divisor from the number of bits and performed division.
Here we make that more clear.  This change is just cosmetic and does not
affect the return value of the numeric version of the function.

Here we also add a set of regression tests both versions of
pg_size_pretty() which test the values directly before and after the
function switches to the next unit.

This bug was introduced in 8a1fab3. Prior to that negative values were
always displayed in bytes.

Author: Dean Rasheed, David Rowley
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEZATCXnNW4HsmZnxhfezR5FuiGgp+mkY4AzcL5eRGO4fuadWg@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 9.6, where the bug was introduced.
balbaev pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 9, 2022
Due to how pg_size_pretty(bigint) was implemented, it's possible that when
given a negative number of bytes that the returning value would not match
the equivalent positive return value when given the equivalent positive
number of bytes.  This was due to two separate issues.

1. The function used bit shifting to convert the number of bytes into
larger units.  The rounding performed by bit shifting is not the same as
dividing.  For example -3 >> 1 = -2, but -3 / 2 = -1.  These two
operations are only equivalent with positive numbers.

2. The half_rounded() macro rounded towards positive infinity.  This meant
that negative numbers rounded towards zero and positive numbers rounded
away from zero.

Here we fix #1 by dividing the values instead of bit shifting.  We fix #2
by adjusting the half_rounded macro always to round away from zero.

Additionally, adjust the pg_size_pretty(numeric) function to be more
explicit that it's using division rather than bit shifting.  A casual
observer might have believed bit shifting was used due to a static
function being named numeric_shift_right.  However, that function was
calculating the divisor from the number of bits and performed division.
Here we make that more clear.  This change is just cosmetic and does not
affect the return value of the numeric version of the function.

Here we also add a set of regression tests both versions of
pg_size_pretty() which test the values directly before and after the
function switches to the next unit.

This bug was introduced in 8a1fab3. Prior to that negative values were
always displayed in bytes.

Author: Dean Rasheed, David Rowley
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEZATCXnNW4HsmZnxhfezR5FuiGgp+mkY4AzcL5eRGO4fuadWg@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 9.6, where the bug was introduced.
balbaev pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 8, 2022
We've heard a couple of reports of people having trouble with
multi-gigabyte-sized query-texts files.  It occurred to me that on
32-bit platforms, there could be an issue with integer overflow
of calculations associated with the total query text size.
Address that with several changes:

1. Limit pg_stat_statements.max to INT_MAX / 2 not INT_MAX.
The hashtable code will bound it to that anyway unless "long"
is 64 bits.  We still need overflow guards on its use, but
this helps.

2. Add a check to prevent extending the query-texts file to
more than MaxAllocHugeSize.  If it got that big, qtext_load_file
would certainly fail, so there's not much point in allowing it.
Without this, we'd need to consider whether extent, query_offset,
and related variables shouldn't be off_t not size_t.

3. Adjust the comparisons in need_gc_qtexts() to be done in 64-bit
arithmetic on all platforms.  It appears possible that under duress
those multiplications could overflow 32 bits, yielding a false
conclusion that we need to garbage-collect the texts file, which
could lead to repeatedly garbage-collecting after every hash table
insertion.

Per report from Bruno da Silva.  I'm not convinced that these
issues fully explain his problem; there may be some other bug that's
contributing to the query-texts file becoming so large in the first
place.  But it did get that big, so #2 is a reasonable defense,
and #3 could explain the reported performance difficulties.

(See also commit 8bbe4cb, which addressed some related bugs.
The second Discussion: link is the thread that led up to that.)

This issue is old, and is primarily a problem for old platforms,
so back-patch.

Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAB+Nuk93fL1Q9eLOCotvLP07g7RAv4vbdrkm0cVQohDVMpAb9A@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/[email protected]
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant