Thanks! :-)
On Sat, May 18, 2024 at 05:10:38PM +0800, Jingxian Li wrote:
> Nice catch! The patch looks good to me.
And fixed that as well.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 11:38:35PM -0700, Will Mortensen wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 7:14 PM Will Mortensen wrote:
>> This comment on ProcSleep() seems to have the values of dontWait
>> backward (double negatives are tricky):
>>
>> * Result: PROC_WAIT_STATUS_OK if we acquired the lock,
>>
On 2024/5/18 14:38, Will Mortensen wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 7:14 PM Will Mortensen wrote:
>> This comment on ProcSleep() seems to have the values of dontWait
>> backward (double negatives are tricky):
>>
>> * Result: PROC_WAIT_STATUS_OK if we acquired the lock,
>> PROC_WAIT_STATUS_ERRO
On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 7:14 PM Will Mortensen wrote:
> This comment on ProcSleep() seems to have the values of dontWait
> backward (double negatives are tricky):
>
> * Result: PROC_WAIT_STATUS_OK if we acquired the lock,
> PROC_WAIT_STATUS_ERROR
> * if not (if dontWait = true, this is a d
On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 1:15 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> Seeing no further discussion, I have committed my version of this
> patch, with your test case.
This comment on ProcSleep() seems to have the values of dontWait
backward (double negatives are tricky):
* Result: PROC_WAIT_STATUS_OK if we ac
On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 9:33 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 11:11 PM Jingxian Li wrote:
> > Your version changes less code than mine by pushing the nowait flag down
> > into ProcSleep(). This looks fine in general, except for a little advice,
> > which I don't think there is nece
On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 11:11 PM Jingxian Li wrote:
> Your version changes less code than mine by pushing the nowait flag down
> into ProcSleep(). This looks fine in general, except for a little advice,
> which I don't think there is necessary to add 'waiting' suffix to the
> process name in funct
Hello Robert,
On 2024/3/8 1:02, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> But instead of just complaining, I decided to try writing a version of
> the patch that seemed acceptable to me. Here it is. I took a different
> approach than you. Instead of splitting up ProcSleep(), I just passed
> down the dontWait flag to
On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 5:28 AM Jingxian Li wrote:
> Based on your comments above, I improve the commit message and comment for
> InsertSelfIntoWaitQueue in new patch.
Well, I had a look at this patch today, and even after reading the new
commit message, I couldn't really convince myself that it w
Hello Robert,
On 2024/2/2 5:05, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 2:16 AM Jingxian Li wrote:
>> According to what you said, I resubmitted a patch which splits the ProcSleep
>> logic into two parts, the former is responsible for inserting self to
>> WaitQueue,
>> the latter is responsibl
Hello Robert,
On 2024/2/2 5:05, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 2:16 AM Jingxian Li wrote:
>> According to what you said, I resubmitted a patch which splits the ProcSleep
>> logic into two parts, the former is responsible for inserting self to
>> WaitQueue,
>> the latter is responsibl
On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 2:16 AM Jingxian Li wrote:
> According to what you said, I resubmitted a patch which splits the ProcSleep
> logic into two parts, the former is responsible for inserting self to
> WaitQueue,
> the latter is responsible for deadlock detection and processing, and the
> former
Hello Robert,
Thank you for your advice. It is very helpful to me.
On 2024/1/16 3:07, Robert Haas wrote:
> Hello Jingxian Li!
>
> I agree with you that this behavior seems surprising. I don't think
> it's quite a bug, more of a limitation. However, I think it would be
> nice to fix it if we can f
Hello Jingxian Li!
I agree with you that this behavior seems surprising. I don't think
it's quite a bug, more of a limitation. However, I think it would be
nice to fix it if we can find a good way to do that.
On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 10:43 PM Jingxian Li wrote:
> Transaction A already holds an n-
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 at 18:23, Jingxian Li wrote:
>
> Hi hackers,
>
> I found a problem when doing the test shown below:
>
> Time
>
> Session A
>
> Session B
>
> T1
>
> postgres=# create table test(a int);
>
> CREATE TABLE
>
> postgres=# insert into test values (1);
>
> INSERT 0 1
>
>
>
> T2
>
> po
Hi Andres, Thanks for your quick reply!
On 2023/11/29 0:51, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2023-11-28 20:52:31 +0800, Jingxian Li wrote:
>> postgres=*# lock table test in exclusive mode ;
>>
>>
>> T4
>>
>> Case 1:
>>
>> postgres=*# lock table test in share row exclusive mode nowait;
>>
>> ERR
Hi,
On 2023-11-28 20:52:31 +0800, Jingxian Li wrote:
> postgres=*# lock table test in exclusive mode ;
>
>
> T4
>
> Case 1:
>
> postgres=*# lock table test in share row exclusive mode nowait;
>
> ERROR: could not obtain lock on relation
> "test"
>
> ---
Hi hackers,
I found a problem when doing the test shown below:
Time
Session A
Session B
T1
postgres=# create table test(a int);
CREATE TABLE
postgres=# insert into test values (1);
INSERT 0 1
T2
19 matches
Mail list logo
