On 2017-11-27 22:53:41 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Tomas Vondra <tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > I'm a bit puzzled by this code in SH_COMPUTE_PARAMETERS: > > > if (tb->size == SH_MAX_SIZE) > > tb->sizemask = 0; > > else > > tb->sizemask = tb->size - 1; > > > Doesn't that mean that with SH_MAX_SIZE we end up with sizemask being 0 > > (i.e. no bits set)? > > Yeah, which is very obviously broken: for one thing, the Asserts > in SH_NEXT/SH_PREV would surely go off.
That's obviously wrong. Not sure how that happened. I might have had it as a shift at first? > (Why are those assertions, anyway, and not test-and-elog? > I do not think an assertion failure is a suitable way to > report "hash table full".) There's a test and elog during insert. Adding actual branches into SH_NEXT/SH_PREV seems like a bad idea. Will test a fix. Greetings, Andres Freund
