On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 10:29:25AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > I don't think going for size_t is a viable path for fixing this. I'm pretty > sure the initial patch would trigger a type mismatch from guc_tables.c - we > don't have infrastructure for size_t GUCs.
Nothing marked as PGDLLIMPORT uses size_t in the tree currently, FWIW. > Perhaps we ought to error out (in BackendStatusShmemSize() or such) if > pgstat_track_activity_query_size * MaxBackends >= 4GB? Yeah, agreed that putting a check like that could catch errors more quickly. > Frankly, it seems like a quite bad idea to have such a high limit for > pgstat_track_activity_query_size. The overhead such a high value has will > surprise people... Still it could have some value for some users with large analytical queries where the syslogger is not going to be a bottleneck? It seems too late to me to change that, but perhaps the docs could be improved to tell that using a too high value can have performance consequences, while mentioning the maximum value. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
