es sense to fix that behaviour in a major version release.
For the existing applications that are using (or unknowingly misusing)
the feature, as Amit mentioned, they have a workaround.
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
it seems unnecessary.
>
+1
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
nhancements mentioned in the thread. If performance is a concern, we
can introduce a GUC to enable/disable this feature.
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
Hello Tom,
On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 12:44 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Kuntal Ghosh writes:
> > While exploring some code in logical replication worker
> > implementation, I noticed that we're accessing an invalid memory while
> > traversing LogicalRepCtx->workers[i].
&g
of
memory in ApplyLauncherShmemSize. But, in the for loop, we're
accessing the max_logical_replication_workers + 1 location which is
resulting in random crashes.
Please find the patch that fixes the issue. I'm not sure whether we
should add a regression test for the same.
--
Thanks
igure out whether a backend is idle for a long time since the
last execution and the execution time of the last query (query_end -
query_start).
You also need to update the documentation.
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
en we might have to detoast the key.
+ */
This doesn't really mention why we need to detoast the key even when
the key remains the same. I guess we can add some more details here.
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
, the following assert will fail in the same function:
/* Should only be called by old-style COPY OUT */
Assert(DoingCopyOut);
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
Amazon Web Services
ldestXmin. Thus the only tuples that the HTSV() we're
> talking about can return DEAD for are ones that were RECENTLY_DEAD
> in heap_page_prune().
>
Got it. Thank you for the explanations. :-)
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
On Sat, Oct 3, 2020 at 1:06 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2020-10-03 12:58:01 +0530, Kuntal Ghosh wrote:
> > IIUC, there can be a HOT-updated tuple which is not initially pruned
> > by heap_page_prune but later diagnosed HEAPTUPLE_DEAD by
> > HeapTupleSatisfiesVacuum (Si
der than
OldestXmin. But, you're right that any tuple older than cutoff_xid
(since it was set earlier) will be pruned by heap_page_prune and hence
we shouldn't encounter the error. I'll study the rewrite_heap_tuple
path as well.
> What made you look at this? Did you hit the error?
Nope, I haven't encountered the error. Just trying to understand the code. :-)
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
: true;
Attached a patch for the same. Thoughts?
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
0001-Fix-sanity-check-for-HOT-updated-tuple-when-freezing.patch
Description: Binary data
tions in dumpSubscription() to
dump the (streaming = 'on') option.
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 10:45 PM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2020-04-15 20:36:39 +0530, Kuntal Ghosh wrote:
> > I was thinking from this point of view - the sooner we introduce
> > parallelism in the process, the greater the benefits.
>
> I don't rea
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 2:15 PM Ants Aasma wrote:
>
> On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 22:40, Kuntal Ghosh wrote:
> > 1. Each worker scans a distinct fixed sized chunk of the CSV file and
> > collects the following three stats from the chunk:
> > a) number of quotes
> > b)
pproach is just impractical for PG due to certain
limitations.
Thoughts?
[1]
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/uploads/prod/2019/04/chunker-sigmod19.pdf
[2] ParaText. https://github.com/wiseio/paratext.
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
erLargestTopTXN().
+static bool
+ReorderBufferCanStream(ReorderBuffer *rb)
+{
+ LogicalDecodingContext *ctx = rb->private_data;
+
+ return ctx->streaming;
+}
Potential inline function.
+static void
+ReorderBufferStreamTXN(ReorderBuffer *rb, ReorderBufferTXN *txn)
+{
+ volatile Snapshot snapshot_now;
On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 5:20 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 4:14 PM Kuntal Ghosh
> wrote:
> >
> > +#define SizeOfTransactionId (sizeof(TransactionId) + sizeof(char))
> > This looks wrong. We should change the name of this Macro or we can
> &
apBuildCurrentState(builder) < SNAPBUILD_FULL_SNAPSHOT &&
- info != XLOG_XACT_ASSIGNMENT)
+ !TransactionIdIsValid(r->toplevel_xid))
Perhaps, XLogRecGetTopXid() can be used.
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Hello Ashutosh, Fujita,
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 3:49 PM Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 at 15:42, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 4:30 PM Kuntal Ghosh
>> wrote:
>> > I'm getting the following warning during compilation.
>&g
arning: unused variable ‘inner_binfo’ [-Wunused-variable]
PartitionBoundInfo inner_binfo = inner_rel->boundinfo;
^
For fixing the same, we can declare inner_binfo as
PG_USED_FOR_ASSERTS_ONLY as it is not used for any other purpose.
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Gho
update
hit_count if we can find the buffer in SimpleLruReadPage_ReadOnly
directly. Am I missing something?
Attached a patch for the same.
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
v1-0001-Update-stats-in-SimpleLruReadPage_ReadOnly.patch
Description: Binary data
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 7:39 PM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 12:21 PM Kuntal Ghosh
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 6:14 PM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > >
> > @@ -448,6 +449,7 @@ XLogInsert(RmgrId rmid, uint8 info)
> > b
pw should be reset. Thoughts?
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
e lock
+ * except for relation extension lock.
Same as above
Other than that, the patches look good to me. I've also done some
testing after applying the Test-group-deadlock patch provided by Amit
earlier in the thread. It works as expected.
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 8:42 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 7:50 PM Kuntal Ghosh
> > wrote:
> >
> > > + /*
> > > + * The relation extension or page lock can never participate in actual
> > > + * deadlock cycle. See Asserts in Lo
On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 8:29 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 7:50 PM Kuntal Ghosh
> wrote:
> > I think moving them inside a macro is a good idea. Also, I think we
> > should move all the Assert related code inside some debugging macro
> > similar to
icipate in deadlock cycles. And, the number of locks under this
category is likely to increase in future with new parallel features.
Hence, it could be used in multiple places. Should we move the
condition inside a macro and just call it from here?
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 9:11 PM Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 2020-03-09 16:20, Kuntal Ghosh wrote:
> > In v3-0001-Refactor-ps_status.c-API.patch,
> > - * postgres: walsender
> > This part is still valid, right?
> Sure but I figured this comment was in the context of
ype".
In v3-0004-Remove-am_syslogger-global-variable.patch,
+ * This is exported so that elog.c can call it when BackendType is B_LOGGER.
s/BackendType/MyBackendType?
Done some basic testing. Working as expected.
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
pass
something longer than MAXPGPATH and we indeed use that value a lot in
the code. IMHO, it looks okay to me to have that assumption here as
well.
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 1:09 PM Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
>
> On 2020-02-24 12:21, Kuntal Ghosh wrote:
> > I've reproduced the issue on head. And, the patch seems to solve the
> > problem. The patch looks good to me. But, I've a small doubt regarding
> > the change
les bigger than the
max heap tuple size correctly which is around 8KB. But, the above
changes will make the tuple size around 3KB. So, it'll not be able to
test that particular scenario.Thoughts?
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
operating on tuple
size, say 100 bytes, approach 1 will allocate 390 MB of memory
(approx.) whereas approach 2 will allocate 4GB of memory
approximately. If there is no obvious error that I'm missing, I think
we should implement the first approach.
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Hello,
On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 1:18 AM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2020-02-07 20:02:01 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 07, 2020 at 10:33:48AM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On 2020-02-04 10:15:01 +0530, K
I've attached a patch that implements the
same. It solves the problem reported earlier. This solution will at
least slow down the process of going OOM even for very small sized
tuples.
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
0001-Restrict-me
ention was to keep 8MB cache only. In
that case, I can come up with another patch.
Thoughts?
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
0001-Fix-comment-for-max_cached_tuplebufs-definition.patch
Description: Binary data
n request of size 8208.
I don't understand the code well enough to comment whether we can
back-patch only this part of the code. But, this seems to allocate a
huge amount of memory per chunk although the tuple is small.
Thoughts?
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 4:12 PM Alexey Kondratov
wrote:
>
> On 04.11.2019 13:05, Kuntal Ghosh wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 3:32 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >> So your result shows that with "streaming on", performance is
> >> degrading? By any chance di
apply on the latest HEAD. Apart from that, the changes looks
good to me.
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
ether 'client_port IS NOT NULL' is a better approach than checking
the backend_type. The patch looks good to me.
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
I've not analyzed the bottleneck yet. I'm
looking into the same.
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
3 ms, Time:
90079.286 ms (01:30.079)
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
gt; > + DEFAULT_BLOOM_BITS, 1, MAX_BLOOM_BITS,
> > + AccessExclusiveLock);
> > Do we need a comment to explain why we're using AccessExclusiveLock in
> > this case?
>
> Because that's the safest default to use here? That seemed obvious to
> me.
Okay. Sounds good.
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
essExclusiveLock);
Do we need a comment to explain why we're using AccessExclusiveLock in
this case?
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
While subscription 3 is created, it eventually reaches to a consistent
snapshot point and prints the WAL location corresponding to it. It
seems sub1/sub2 immediately fails to serialize the snapshot to the
.snap file having the same WAL location.
Is this helpful?
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
ux version 5.0.0-23-generic), but
couldn't reproduce the same.
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
undo data updates don't depend on
> the insert pointer. But I see what you mean: the next modification of
> the page that DOES depend on the insert pointer might not log the
> meta-data if it's not the first WAL record to touch it after a
> checkpoint. Rats. I'll have to think about that some more.
Cool.
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
undo action
progress after a checkpoint, it'll not be able to WAL log the backup
image of the meta unlogged part. IMHO, this breaks the recovery logic
of unlogged part of undo meta.
Thoughts?
On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 9:47 AM Thomas Munro wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 8:27 PM Kun
g the status to ready for committer.
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
atches for Pg95 and Pg94. I guess the same patch should be
applied on Pg10 and Pg96.
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
d it to this patch.
>
Yeah, it'll be good to have some regression tests for the same. I'm
also not sure which regression file best suites for these tests.
[1] http://cfbot.cputube.org/patch_24_2274.log
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
slot->meta.status as UNDO_LOG_STATUS_FULL. If we don't that, after
crash recovery, some new transaction may use that undo log which is
wrong, IMHO. Am I missing something?
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
single caller - it should be a static
> inline function that gets the element once, stores it in a local
> variable, and then updates all the fields.
>
Noted. Earlier, Robert also raised the point of using so many macros.
He also suggested to use a single type of object that stores all the
information we need. It'll make things simpler and easier to
understand. In the upcoming patch set, we're removing all these
changes.
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
id= 50; Read FROM t where id=1;
COMMIT; (creates T3->T4)
Step 5: T3-> COMMIT;
Step 6: T1-> UPDATE t where id=1; COMMIT; (creates T4->T1,)
At step 6, when the update statement is executed, T1 is rolled back
because of T3->T4->T1.
But for zheap, step 3 also creates a dependency T1->T3 because of
in-place update. When T4 commits in step 4, it marks T3 as doomed
because of T1 --> T3 --> T4. Hence, in step 5, T3 is rolled back.
[1] Re: In-place updates and serializable transactions:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAGz5QCJzreUqJqHeXrbEs6xb0zCNKBHhOj6D9Tjd3btJTzydxg%40mail.gmail.com
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
ds for subtransactions. Alternatively we shouldn't make that a
> binary search for each subtrans level, but just have a small
> simplehash hashtable for xids.
A check for top transaction id first and usage of simple sound like
good optimizations. But, I'm not sure whether these changes should be
part of this patch or a separate one.
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
you asked for. If you're not using multiple tablespaces
s/though/through
+ if (slot == NULL)
+ {
+ if (UndoLogShared->next_logno > MaxUndoLogNumber)
+ {
+ /*
+ * You've used up all 16 exabytes of undo log addressing space.
+ * This is a difficult state to reach using only 16 exabytes of
+ * WAL.
+ */
+ elog(ERROR, "undo log address space exhausted");
+ }
looks like a potential unlikely() condition.
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
nding out.
>
Do we also need to initialize vacuum_cleanup_index_scale_factor?
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
is exactly what my concern is. The base predicate selectivities
of t1 and t2 should have an impact on the calculation of the
correction coefficient. If those selectivities are low, the
misestimation (which is actual/estimate) should not affect the t1-t2
join correction coefficient much.
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
ate for misestimates of inputs, but I think
> that's doable.
>
That'll be an interesting work. For the above query, we can definitely
calculate the correction coefficient of t1-t2 join given (t1.a = ? AND
t1.b = ? AND t1.c < ?) and
(t2.x = ? AND t2.y = ?) are true. But, I'
On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 7:19 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 7:08 AM Kuntal Ghosh
> wrote:
> > This can surely be fixed from the script. While configuring the old
> > master as a standby server, clear/modify the settings in
> > postgresql.auto.con
On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 5:26 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Kuntal Ghosh writes:
> >> 2. If we only support "Read Committed" isolation level, is there a safe
> >> way to not index such data?
>
> > I can't think of a case where the RECENTLY_DELETED
ettings in
postgresql.auto.conf. But, it contradicts with the comment in the file
which forbids the user from editing the file.
Any thoughts?
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 2:12 PM Alex wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 4:10 PM Kuntal Ghosh
> wrote:
>> I think what I'm trying to say is different.
>>
>> For my case, the sequence is as following:
>> 1. Transaction A has deleted a tuple, say t1 and got commit
On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 1:30 PM Alex wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 3:28 PM Kuntal Ghosh
> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 12:15 PM Alex wrote:
>>>
>>> HEAPTUPLE_RECENTLY_DEAD, /* tuple is dead, but not deletable yet */
>>>
&
following clause to detect serializable
conflicts:
Transaction A precedes transaction B. (Because, transaction A has deleted a
tuple and it's not visible to transaction B)
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 12:42 PM Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 3:50 PM Kuntal Ghosh
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 11:31 AM Zhenghua Lyu wrote:
> >> 2. Is the case above a bug or a feature?
> >>
> > IMHO, it loo
mentation. The argument can be that the snapshot is
consistent throughout all the nodes. Whatever tuple you've fetched from the
bottom level is locked correctly.
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
;t use this index */ }
Please let me know if I'm missing something.
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 7:07 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
> > On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 01:25:19PM +0530, Kuntal Ghosh wrote:
> >> If we fix the issue in this way, we're certainly not going to do all
> >> those portal,locks,memory,resource owner cl
27;m not sure
how relevant those steps are since the database is anyway shutting down.
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
I had to change the default max_worker_processes
> from 8 to 12, because otherwise a couple of tests run with fewer
> parallel workers than they expect, due to undo worker processes using
> up slots. There is probably a better solution to that problem.
>
> I put the patches in a tar
he master.
> 4. Create a standby using pg_basebackup --tablespace_mapping==
> 5. Start the standby.
>
> [1]
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20190422.211933.156769089.horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp
>
Thank you for the info. I'll try the same.
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
I'm able to reproduce the
issue with the attached script.
sh standby-server-setup.sh
make installcheck
I accept that configuring master-standby on the same machine for this
test is not okay. But, can we avoid the PANIC somehow? Or, is this
intentional and I should not include testtablespac
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 6:46 PM Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 15:38, Kuntal Ghosh wrote:
>
>>
>> Thank you for the patch. It seems to me that while performing COPY
>> FREEZE, if we've copied tuples in a previously emptied page
>
>
> Th
ZitDgp9FPHee08NT2FQFmz_pQ%40mail.gmail.com
>
> --
> Pavan Deolasee http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
e added an extra expected file for the same.
> Congratulations on making this work so well!
>
Thanks for developing the serializable module in a nice decoupled architecture.
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
eates T3->T4)
Step 5: T3-> COMMIT;
Step 6: T1-> UPDATE t where id=1; COMMIT; (creates T4->T1,)
At step 6, when the update statement is executed, T1 is rolled back
because of T3->T4->T1.
But for zheap, step 3 also creates a dependency T1->T3 because of
in-place update. When T4
oads (even though it might look bad in
> benchmarks which include a mix of blind writes and rmw operations).
> Particularly if it only happens if you explicitly opt into zheap storage.
>
Thanks Joshua for sharing your input on this. I'm not aware of any
realistic workload
e an acceptable behavior.
In brief, due to in-place updates, in some cases, the false positives
may increase for serializable transactions. Any thoughts?
[1] src/backend/storage/lmgr/README-SSI
[2] src/test/isolation/specs/multiple-row-versions.spec
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
BlockNumber curblkno = InvalidBlockNumber;
>^
Thanks Daniel for testing zheap and reporting the issue. We'll push a
fix for the same.
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
o the regression failures when the tap-tests are enabled.
It seems that we're not estimating and allocating the shared memory
for rollback-hash tables correctly. I've added a patch to fix the
same.
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
0001-F
PC enum.
> And those ones are also incorrect after another lookup:
> - WAIT_EVENT_PARALLEL_FINISH
> - WAIT_EVENT_HASH_GROW_BATCHES_DECIDING
> - WAIT_EVENT_LOGICAL_APPLY_MAIN
> I don't see more of them..
Nice. Same here.
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
is a patch for HEAD, for v11 I propose to only fix the
> documentation side of things to avoid an ABI breakage.
+1
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Hello all,
In pageinspect/sql/gin.sql, we don't drop the table test1 at the end
of the test. IMHO, we should clean-up at the end of a test. I've
attached the patch to perform the same.
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterpr
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 11:04 AM, Andrey V. Lepikhov
wrote:
> On 29.06.2018 10:00, Kuntal Ghosh wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 12:10 PM, Andrey V. Lepikhov
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I prepare third version of the patches. Summary:
>>> 1. Mask DEAD t
ce may be
reclaimed by PageRepairFragmentation. Now, if you do byte-by-byte
comparison with wal_consistency tool, it may fail even for normal
tuple as well. Please let me know if you feel the same way.
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
gt; + {
>> + if (fsync(tar_data->fd) != 0)
>> + return false;
>> + }
>>
>> That looks incorrect to me, hence shouldn't something like the attached
>> be done? Magnus and others, any opinions?
In the same note, in tar_close(), we
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 7:36 PM, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> Kuntal Ghosh wrote:
> [pg_test_fsync doesn't use pgwin32_open and hence doesn't respect O_DSYNC]
>> On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 2:39 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 10:18 AM, Michael Paquier
&g
se rather than erroring due to lock modes.
+1
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
gresql.org/message-id/flat/D90A5A6C612A39408103E6ECDD77B829408D4F%40voyager.corporate.connx.com#d90a5a6c612a39408103e6ecdd77b829408...@voyager.corporate.connx.com
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
hael Paquier
> Tomas Vondra
>
> Congratulations to all!
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> --
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 7:52 PM, Kuntal Ghosh
wrote:
> Hello hackers,
>
> While working on serializable transaction isolation, I've noticed some
> strange behavior in the first permutation mentioned in
> isolation/specs/read-only-anomaly-2.spec file.
>
> setup
> {
&g
without any conflict.
However, if I perform "VACUUM FREEZE bank_account" after the setup
step, s2wx throws a conflict error:
ERROR: could not serialize access due to read/write dependencies
among transactions
DETAIL: Reason code: Canceled on identification as a pivot, during wri
15 minutes.
2. Combination of ROLLBACK and COMMIT (As suggested by Fabien)
3. PGbench tests for fixed number of transaction.
4. Modify the distribution (As suggested by Alexander Korotkov)
Do let me know if any other tests are required.
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.en
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Kuntal Ghosh
wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 5:20 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 4:00 PM, Kuntal Ghosh
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Thomas Munro
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Dec
On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 5:20 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 4:00 PM, Kuntal Ghosh
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Thomas Munro
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 8:14 PM, Amit Kapila
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
he same:
+ else if (scan->parallel_scan != NULL)
+ {
+ /* allow next page be processed by parallel worker */
+ _bt_parallel_release(scan, opaque->btpo_next);
+ }
/* nope, keep going */
if (scan->parallel_scan != NULL)
IMHO, There is no need to add an extra if condition.
_bt_parall
random length texts(max length 100) and tweaked the
above query as follows:
select ten,count(*) from tenk1 a where a.ten in (select
b.ten from tenk1 b where (select a.vartext from tenk1 c where c.ten =
a.ten limit 1) = b.vartext limit 1) group by a.ten;
This query is equivalent to select ten,count(*) from tenk1 group by
a.ten. It also produced the expected result without throwing any
error.
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
100 matches
Mail list logo
