From: Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@BlueTreble.com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Ronan Dunklau <ronan.dunklau@dalibo.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: pg_dump / copy bugs with "big lines" ?
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2015 00:06:42 -0500
Message-ID: <5524B762.5060407@BlueTreble.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAB7nPqSZyHH535q_HvtXzX0cmWregHoJorKHxfLHGRobHCsMrw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1836813.YmyOrS99PX@ronan.dunklau.fr>
<5519E025.3030704@BlueTreble.com>
<7521105.6Ff26iknIn@ronan.dunklau.fr>
<5522C7BC.3070705@BlueTreble.com>
<CA+TgmobPaHSxPU523zdYHW3=H5pd9uFUsk3=d9YsHOsXdEKnuw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAB7nPqSZyHH535q_HvtXzX0cmWregHoJorKHxfLHGRobHCsMrw@mail.gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>
On 4/7/15 10:29 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@bluetreble.com> wrote:
>>> In any case, I don't think it would be terribly difficult to allow a bit
>>> more than 1GB in a StringInfo. Might need to tweak palloc too; ISTR there's
>>> some 1GB limits there too.
>>
>> The point is, those limits are there on purpose. Changing things
>> arbitrarily wouldn't be hard, but doing it in a principled way is
>> likely to require some thought. For example, in the COPY OUT case,
>> presumably what's happening is that we palloc a chunk for each
>> individual datum, and then palloc a buffer for the whole row. Now, we
>> could let the whole-row buffer be bigger, but maybe it would be better
>> not to copy all of the (possibly very large) values for the individual
>> columns over into a row buffer before sending it. Some refactoring
>> that avoids the need for a potentially massive (1.6TB?) whole-row
>> buffer would be better than just deciding to allow it.
>
> I think that something to be aware of is that this is as well going to
> require some rethinking of the existing libpq functions that are here
> to fetch a row during COPY with PQgetCopyData, to make them able to
> fetch chunks of data from one row.
The discussion about upping the StringInfo limit was for cases where a
change in encoding blows up because it's now larger. My impression was
that these cases don't expand by a lot, so we wouldn't be significantly
expanding StringInfo.
I agree that buffering 1.6TB of data would be patently absurd. Handling
the case of COPYing a row that's >1GB clearly needs work than just
bumping up some size limits. That's why I was wondering whether this was
a real scenario or just hypothetical... I'd be surprised if someone
would be happy with the performance of 1GB tuples, let alone even larger
than that.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: Jim.Nasby@BlueTreble.com, michael.paquier@gmail.com, robertmhaas@gmail.com, ronan.dunklau@dalibo.com
Subject: Re: pg_dump / copy bugs with "big lines" ?
In-Reply-To: <5524B762.5060407@BlueTreble.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox