On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 11:30 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com> writes: > On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 2:00 PM Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com> >> Your patch looks good to me, but maybe you would find it suitable to fix in >> passing one more integer overflow in costsize.c?
> Nice catch. The overflow occurs when cost_bitmap_heap_scan() calls > compute_bitmap_pages(), and the loop_count parameter is converted from > double to int. I wonder if we can change the loop_count parameter to be > double for compute_bitmap_pages() to avoid such overflow.
However, I'd be a bit uncomfortable about back-patching; since that function is globally exposed, it's at least possible that some extension is calling it and would see an ABI break. Is it good enough to fix this in HEAD? I'd argue yes, given that a loop_count larger than INT_MAX seems like a pretty improbable case.
I agree with you that it's good enough to fix this in HEAD. The lack of complaints from fields for so many years suggests that it's not a common case to have loop_count larger than INT_MAX.
