From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Daniel Verite <daniel@manitou-mail.org>
Cc: movead.li@highgo.ca <movead.li@highgo.ca>
Cc: ashutosh.bapat <ashutosh.bapat@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: A bug when use get_bit() function for a long bytea string
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2020 16:04:06 -0400
Message-ID: <563.1585857846@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <84525289-3891-4368-9157-5452f53a6908@manitou-mail.org>
References: <84525289-3891-4368-9157-5452f53a6908@manitou-mail.org>
"Daniel Verite" <daniel@manitou-mail.org> writes:
> These 2 tests need to allocate big chunks of contiguous memory, so they
> might fail for lack of memory on tiny machines, and even when not failing,
> they're pretty slow to run. Are they worth the trouble?
Yeah, I'd noticed those on previous readings of the patch. They'd almost
certainly fail on some of our older/smaller buildfarm members, so they're
not getting committed, even if they didn't require multiple seconds apiece
to run (even on a machine with plenty of memory). It's useful to have
them for initial testing though.
It'd be great if there was a way to test get_bit/set_bit on large
indexes without materializing a couple of multi-hundred-MB objects.
Can't think of one offhand though.
regards, tom lane
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: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, daniel@manitou-mail.org, movead.li@highgo.ca, ashutosh.bapat@2ndquadrant.com, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: A bug when use get_bit() function for a long bytea string
In-Reply-To: <563.1585857846@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* 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