pg_query Parser Patches for Postgres 10.16 #2
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This is for compatibility with Postgres 9.6 and older, which used ? as the replacement character in pg_stat_statements. Note that this intentionally breaks use of ? as an operator in some uncommon cases.
This allows other source units to have the accompanying functions for the already exported plpgsql_adddatum.
This is a partial backport of 9fa6f00 which is important for pg_query to avoid making the memory context methods thread-local through its automatic rewriting logic.
lfittl
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 2, 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.
lfittl
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 2, 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
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Do not merge. This PR only exists to track the patches that are applied for pg_query (10-latest branch) on top of Postgres 10.16.