On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 8:37 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 1, 2018 at 10:28 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 1, 2018 at 8:22 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 7:27 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > I wouldn't bother bumping HASH_VERSION. First, the fix needs to be
>> > back-patched, and you certainly can't back-patch a HASH_VERSION bump.
>> > Second, you should just pick a formula that gives the same answer as
>> > now for the cases where the overrun doesn't occur, and some other
>> > sufficiently-value for the cases where an overrun currently does
>> > occur. If you do that, you're not changing the behavior in any case
>> > that currently works, so there's really no reason for a version bump.
>> > It just becomes a bug fix at that point.
>> >
>
> makes sense.
>
>>
>> I think if we compute with below formula which I suggested upthread
>>
>> #define HASH_MAX_BITMAPS Min(BLCKSZ / 8, 1024)
>>
>> then for BLCKSZ 8K and bigger, it will remain the same value where it
>> does not overrun. And, for the small BLCKSZ, I think it will give
>> sufficient space for the hash map. If the BLCKSZ is 1K then the sizeof
>> (HashMetaPageData) + sizeof (HashPageOpaque) = 968 which is very close
>> to the BLCKSZ.
>>
>
> Yeah, so at 1K, the value of HASH_MAX_BITMAPS will be 128 as per above
> formula which is what it was its value prior to the commit 620b49a1.
> I think it will be better if you add a comment in your patch
> indicating the importance/advantage of such a formula.
>
I have added the comments.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com