Re: [HACKERS] VACUUM/ANALYZE counting of in-doubt tuples

2007-11-18 Thread Simon Riggs
On Sat, 2007-11-17 at 12:27 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: I feel fairly comfortable with this analysis for ANALYZE, and the patch I posted yesterday can easily be adjusted to accommodate it. However, what of VACUUM? As that code stands, every non-removable tuple (including RECENTLY_DEAD ones) is

[HACKERS] postgres dumps core - HASH indexes

2007-11-18 Thread Adam PAPAI
After a few minutes, my postgres dumps core. (gdb) where #0 0x041ee52d in kill () from /usr/lib/libc.so.40.3 #1 0x04226c37 in abort () at /usr/src/lib/libc/stdlib/abort.c:65 #2 0x1c1c2fcb in errfinish () #3 0x1c1c3be1 in elog_finish () #4 0x1c040598 in _hash_expandtable () #5 0x1c03f1a4

Re: [HACKERS] postgres dumps core - HASH indexes

2007-11-18 Thread Tom Lane
Adam PAPAI [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: After a few minutes, my postgres dumps core. (gdb) where #0 0x041ee52d in kill () from /usr/lib/libc.so.40.3 #1 0x04226c37 in abort () at /usr/src/lib/libc/stdlib/abort.c:65 #2 0x1c1c2fcb in errfinish () #3 0x1c1c3be1 in elog_finish () #4 0x1c040598

[HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: GIN index build's allocatedMemory counter needs to be long, not

2007-11-18 Thread Jeremy Drake
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007, Tom Lane wrote: GIN index build's allocatedMemory counter needs to be long, not uint32. Else, in a 64-bit machine with maintenance_work_mem set to above 4Gb, the counter overflows I don't know if this has been discussed before, but you are aware that it is not dictated by

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: GIN index build's allocatedMemory counter needs to be long, not

2007-11-18 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Jeremy Drake wrote: I don't know if this has been discussed before, but you are aware that it is not dictated by the C standard that sizeof(long) == sizeof(void*)? As evidenced by this piece of code in postgres.h: typedef unsigned long Datum;/* XXX sizeof(long) = sizeof(void *) */ The

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: GIN index build's allocatedMemory counter needs to be long, not

2007-11-18 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jeremy Drake wrote: I don't know if this has been discussed before, but you are aware that it is not dictated by the C standard that sizeof(long) == sizeof(void*)? Yes, and there is lots of work left to do to support that. Yeah. The current code