Message-ID: <8d4c70d8-3212-45fe-ef8e-6b6bb511ace4@enterprisedb.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2023 19:34:02 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.8.0
Subject: Re: Add LZ4 compression in pg_dump
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>,
 Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>, gkokolatos@pm.me
Cc: "shiy.fnst@fujitsu.com" <shiy.fnst@fujitsu.com>,
 Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>,
 "pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
 Rachel Heaton <rachelmheaton@gmail.com>
References: <7zu6GYFi72jByVk2SEe_nd8r1DHhwA35vSntAE9sAfiMX9Lfk6bwimkwmu7GDgYaEvL27SE4qF1uK4_LHWQM4H-SXOwkMAI-GV8PKGmED_E=@pm.me>
 <6YZqN2HEE4yJxxxXWiMl4QWwKzLon0SdKETTGVkT9zjWnXMftGZjLKHHjGFuwC_5I6xL2s8nMXdLQGA4vEFveYXSHbfD9K9pDQvEJF2y99o=@pm.me>
 <Y9JpuLGng5zLO4Mx@paquier.xyz>
 <AcPUJxzDanXfXdqYOrrZ0L9J9qcnCblkc5z5x9IgKUm7d89pa6B7y8fhUOb2JGDef8h3VP6Ts7j-BYSMmtn50jVuHAT2nBleGosIdVyhG7Q=@pm.me>
 <OSZPR01MB631087FC3B53AD8B1E3439F7FDA39@OSZPR01MB6310.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
 <SnTBJOQtJQf_mnXh6icTznqC05gnGqXKWDwjEA15uIx3zf0cJBwY1aK7ULztKoqlXrGM39lHtEpLGmS48A7585FXo1sO6W2YR5RtiDoWpDU=@pm.me>
 <535565cd-b69f-c064-a845-15c0fc44db4a@enterprisedb.com>
 <mYBKRYonRy5OiDDYxcxOOJ5xM9iLnuDsGP92zC7mjw8ew1wiccYZIpTvQEmtgRoAXRhaj91SAKwtFluUtRDZ3r6pRdGYLncWK7rXIQrHhFY=@pm.me>
 <22cb80ed-ec87-54c7-fd5b-cdcf79766bb1@enterprisedb.com>
 <8421f53d-c9f7-c02e-3278-9f9522a8e8f3@enterprisedb.com>
 <33496f7c-3449-1426-d568-63f6bca2ac1f@gmail.com>
 <4336c6e7-df8b-1e96-5408-b16dbc6ca6e0@enterprisedb.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>
In-Reply-To: <4336c6e7-df8b-1e96-5408-b16dbc6ca6e0@enterprisedb.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/8d4c70d8-3212-45fe-ef8e-6b6bb511ace4%40enterprisedb.com>
Precedence: bulk


On 3/12/23 11:07, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 11.03.23 07:00, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
>> Hello,
>> 23.02.2023 23:24, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>>> On 2/23/23 16:26, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>>>> Thanks for v30 with the updated commit messages. I've pushed 0001 after
>>>> fixing a comment typo and removing (I think) an unnecessary change
>>>> in an
>>>> error message.
>>>>
>>>> I'll give the buildfarm a bit of time before pushing 0002 and 0003.
>>>>
>>> I've now pushed 0002 and 0003, after minor tweaks (a couple typos etc.),
>>> and marked the CF entry as committed. Thanks for the patch!
>>>
>>> I wonder how difficult would it be to add the zstd compression, so that
>>> we don't have the annoying "unsupported" cases.
>>
>> With the patch 0003 committed, a single warning -Wtype-limits appeared
>> in the
>> master branch:
>> $ CPPFLAGS="-Og -Wtype-limits" ./configure --with-lz4 -q && make -s -j8
>> compress_lz4.c: In function ‘LZ4File_gets’:
>> compress_lz4.c:492:19: warning: comparison of unsigned expression in
>> ‘< 0’ is always false [-Wtype-limits]
>>    492 |         if (dsize < 0)
>>        |
>> (I wonder, is it accidental that there no other places that triggers
>> the warning, or some buildfarm animals had this check enabled before?)
> 
> I think there is an underlying problem in this code that it dances back
> and forth between size_t and int in an unprincipled way.
> 
> In the code that triggers the warning, dsize is size_t.  dsize is the
> return from LZ4File_read_internal(), which is declared to return int.
> The variable that LZ4File_read_internal() returns in the success case is
> size_t, but in case of an error it returns -1.  (So the code that is
> warning is meaning to catch this error case, but it won't ever work.)
> Further below LZ4File_read_internal() calls LZ4File_read_overflow(),
> which is declared to return int, but in some cases it returns
> fs->overflowlen, which is size_t.
> 

I agree. I just got home so I looked at this only very briefly, but I
think it's clearly wrong to assign the LZ4File_read_internal() result to
a size_t variable (and it seems to me LZ4File_gets does the same mistake
with LZ4File_read_internal() result).

I'll get this fixed early next week, I'm too tired to do that now
without likely causing further issues.

> This should be cleaned up.
> 
> AFAICT, the upstream API in lz4.h uses int for size values, but
> lz4frame.h uses size_t, so I don't know what the correct approach is.

Yeah, that's a good point. I think Justin is right we should be using
the LZ4F stuff, so ultimately we'll probably switch to size_t. But IMO
it's definitely better to correct the current code first, and only then
switch to LZ4F (from one correct state to another).


regards

-- 
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company