Re: A bug when use get_bit() function for a long bytea string
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: A bug when use get_bit() function for a long bytea string |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 563.1585857846@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: A bug when use get_bit() function for a long bytea string ("Daniel Verite" <daniel@manitou-mail.org>) |
| Ответы |
Re: A bug when use get_bit() function for a long bytea string
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
"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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: