Re: postmaster segfaults with HUGE table

On Mon, 2004-11-15 at 20:53 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I think the SELECT limit should be MaxTupleAttributeNumber not
> MaxHeapAttributeNumber.

Ah, true -- I forgot about the distinction...

> What I think needs to happen is to check p_next_resno at some point
> after the complete tlist has been built.

Attached is a revised patch -- I just did the check at the end of
transformStmt(), since otherwise we'll need to duplicate code in the
various places that resnos are used/incremented (set operation
statements, normal selects, updates, and so on). This is somewhat
fragile in that we usually assign p_next_resno to an AttrNumber and only
check for overflow at the end of the analysis phase, but it seems safe
for the moment...

BTW I figure this should be backpatched to REL7_4_STABLE. Barring any
objections I will do that (and apply to HEAD) this evening.

-Neil