Re: BUG #14932: SELECT DISTINCT val FROM table gets stuck in an infinite loop
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>, Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>, "Todd A. Cook" <tcook@blackducksoftware.com>, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>, PostgreSQL Bugs <pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org>
Date: 2018-01-29T23:12:58Z
Lists: pgsql-bugs
On 2018-01-29 17:54:42 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu> writes: > > On 29 January 2018 at 19:11, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> One other point here is that it's not really clear to me what a randomly > >> varying IV is supposed to accomplish. Surely we're not intending that > >> it prevents somebody from crafting a data set that causes bad hash > >> performance. > > > I actually think that is a real live issue that we will be forced to > > deal with one day. And I think that day is coming soon. > > > It's not hard to imagine a user of a web site intentionally naming > > their objects such that they all hash to the same value. Probably most > > systems the worst case is a query that takes a few seconds or even > > tens of seconds but if you get lucky you could run a server out of > > memory. > > By their very nature, hash algorithms have weak spots. Pretending that > they do not, or that you can 100% remove them, is a fool's errand. Having edge case weaknesses and having remotely triggerable weaknesses aren't the same. And the cost for preventing such misuse is a immeasurable runtime difference and returning queries that don't specify an order and don't have a "natural" order with a changing order. That's not particularly high. Greetings, Andres Freund
Commits
-
Improve bit perturbation in TupleHashTableHash.
- d18d4bca81f8 10.2 landed
- c068f87723ca 11.0 landed
-
Prevent growth of simplehash tables when they're "too empty".
- d1aac2998789 10.2 landed
- ab9f2c429d8f 11.0 landed
-
Add stack-overflow guards in set-operation planning.
- 1b2a3860d3ea 10.2 cited