On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 10:42 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > Am I the only that that thinks this code is doing far too much in a
> > PG_CATCH block?
>
> You mean the one in ReorderBufferProcessTXN? Yeah, that is mighty
> ugly. It might be all right given that it almost immedi
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Am I the only that that thinks this code is doing far too much in a
> PG_CATCH block?
You mean the one in ReorderBufferProcessTXN? Yeah, that is mighty
ugly. It might be all right given that it almost immediately does
AbortCurrentTransaction, since that should basically
On 2021-Sep-06, Amit Kapila wrote:
> The error can occur at multiple places (like via palloc or various
> other places) between the first time we subtract the change_size and
> add it back after the change is re-computed. I think the correct fix
> would be that in the beginning we just compute the
On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 2:02 PM Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
>
> On 9/7/21 9:11 AM, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
> >
>
> Please find enclosed patch v2 (for the master branch) implementing the
> modified approach of option 2) proposed by Amit.
>
The patch looks good to me. I have made a minor modification
On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 11:33 AM Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 9/7/21 7:58 AM, Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 11:10 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
>> >> Isn't it better if we use option 2) at all places as then we won't
>> >> need any special check inside ReorderBufferChangeMem
On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 11:10 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>> Isn't it better if we use option 2) at all places as then we won't
> >> need any special check inside ReorderBufferChangeMemoryUpdate()?
> >
> >
> > If we want to do this then be careful about
> REORDER_BUFFER_CHANGE_INTERNAL_TUPLECID change.
On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 11:08 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 8:38 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 9:14 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>> >
>> > On Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 8:54 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for your feedback!
>> >>
>> >> That seems i
On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 8:38 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 9:14 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 8:54 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks for your feedback!
> >>
> >> That seems indeed more logical, so I see 3 options to do so:
> >>
> >> 1) Add a
On Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 9:14 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 8:54 PM Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for your feedback!
>>
>> That seems indeed more logical, so I see 3 options to do so:
>>
>> 1) Add a new API say ReorderBufferChangeMemorySubstractSize() (with a Size
>> as
On Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 8:54 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
wrote:
> Thanks for your feedback!
>
> That seems indeed more logical, so I see 3 options to do so:
>
> 1) Add a new API say ReorderBufferChangeMemorySubstractSize() (with a
> Size as one parameter) and make use of it in ReorderBufferToastReplace(
On Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 4:04 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 3:15 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Please find attached a patch proposal to avoid the failed assertion (by
> ensuring that ReorderBufferChangeMemoryUpdate() being triggered with
> "addition" set to false in R
On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 3:15 PM Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
>
>
> Please find attached a patch proposal to avoid the failed assertion (by
> ensuring that ReorderBufferChangeMemoryUpdate() being triggered with
> "addition" set to false in ReorderBufferToastReplace() is done after the
> elog(ERROR,)
12 matches
Mail list logo
