Re: pl/pgSQL, get diagnostics and big data - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
| From | Christian Ullrich |
|---|---|
| Subject | Re: pl/pgSQL, get diagnostics and big data |
| Date | |
| Msg-id | n9dei3$bn7$1@ger.gmane.org Whole thread Raw |
| In response to | pl/pgSQL, get diagnostics and big data (Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum <adsmail@wars-nicht.de>) |
| Responses |
Re: pl/pgSQL, get diagnostics and big data
Re: pl/pgSQL, get diagnostics and big data |
| List | pgsql-hackers |
* Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum wrote:
> one of our customers approached us and complained, that GET DIAGNOSTICS
> row_count returns invalid results if the number of rows is > 2^31. It's
> Attached patch expands the row_count to 64 bit.
>
> diagnostics=# select testfunc_pg((2^32 + 50000)::bigint);
> testfunc_pg
> -------------
> 4295017296
> (1 row)
This is my first patch review, but I have to get my feet wet at some
point, and this is a nice, small patch to do that.
Following the checklist from the wiki:
- Is the patch in context format: Yes.
- Does it apply cleanly to master: Yes.
- Does it include reasonable tests, doc patches, etc.: No. While it would be nice if it had some, a test that inserts
2^32rows will take a while and can hardly be called reasonable.
The patch is designed to expand the size of the "affected records" count
in the command tag from 32 to 64 bits.
- Does it do that: Yes.
- Do we want that: Yes, because it is motivated by reports from users who have queries like that in real life.
- Do we already have it: No.
- Does it follow SQL spec or community-agreed behavior: This is not covered by the SQL standard and there has not, to
myknowledge, been any discussion on this point on -hackers. It is, however, the obvious approach to solving the
specificissue.
- Does it include pg_dump support: n/a
- Are there dangers: Existing applications and client libraries must support the increased maximum size (up to nine
additionaldigits) and maximum value. libpq apparently does not parse the command tag, only stores it as a string for
retrievalby PQcmdStatus(), so it is not affected in terms of parsing the value, and for storage, it uses a
64-characterbuffer, which will overflow if the command name part of the tag exceeds 32 characters (63 - 19 [row count]
-10 [OID] - 2 [spaces]). The longest command name I can think of is "REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW" which, at 25
characters,stays comfortably below this limit, and does not include a row count anyway.
- Have all the bases been covered: The patch changes all locations where the command tag is formatted, and where the
recordcount is retrieved by PL/pgSQL.
- Does the patch follow the coding guidelines: I believe so.
- Are there portability issues/Will it work on Windows/BSD etc.:
No, it will not work correctly on Windows when built with MSVC, although it may work with MinGW.
+++ postgresql-9.5.0/src/backend/tcop/pquery.c @@ -195,7 +195,7 @@ { case CMD_SELECT:
snprintf(completionTag,COMPLETION_TAG_BUFSIZE, - "SELECT %u", queryDesc->estate->es_processed); +
"SELECT %lu", queryDesc->estate->es_processed);
%lu formats unsigned long. "long" is problematic in terms of portability, because sizeof(long) is different
everywhere.It is 32 bits on Windows and on 32-bit *nix, and 64 bits on 64-bit *nix.
I added the following line to the INSERT formatting in pquery.c:
queryDesc->estate->es_processed += 471147114711LL;
This number is 0x6DB28E70D7; so inserting one row should return "INSERT 0 2995679448" (0xB28E70D8):
postgres=# insert into t1 values (0);INSERT 0 2995679448
To fix this, I think it will be enough to change the format strings to use "%zu" instead of "%lu". pg_snprintf() is
selectedby configure if the platform's snprintf() does not support the "z" conversion. I tried this, and it appears
towork:
postgres=# insert into t1 values (0);INSERT 0 471147114712
I have looked for other uses of "%lu", and found none that may cause the same issue; apparently they are all used
withvalues that clearly have 32-bit type; actually, most of them are used to format error codes in Windows-specific
code.
- Are the comments sufficient and accurate: Yes.
- Does it do what it says, correctly: Yes, except for the Windows thing.
- Does it produce compiler warnings: No. First, pg_snprintf() does not use the system implementation, and second, a
warning(C4477) for this kind of format string mismatch was only added in VS2015, which is not officially supported
(itworks for me).
- Can you make it crash: No. The problematic argument always appears last in the sprintf() calls, so the format string
issueshould not be exploitable.
I did not run the regression tests or do the "performance" sections
after I found the Windows issue. I do not think it will negatively
affect performance, though.
In all, if replacing four "l"s with "z"s is indeed enough, I think this
patch is an appropriate solution for solving the underlying issue.
--
Christian
pgsql-hackers by date: