On 2020-03-24 18:03:57 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Can we change the status of CF entry for this patch [1] to committed
> or is there any work pending?
Done!
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 6:50 AM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 4:45 PM Andres Freund wrote:
>>
>>
>> I additionally restricted the controller_print_speculative_locks step to
>> the current database and made a bunch of debug output more
>> precise. Survived ~150 runs locally
On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 4:45 PM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> I additionally restricted the controller_print_speculative_locks step to
> the current database and made a bunch of debug output more
> precise. Survived ~150 runs locally.
>
> Lets see what the buildfarm says...
>
>
Thanks so much for fini
Hi,
On 2020-02-07 16:40:46 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> I'm currently fighting with a race I'm observing in about 1/4 of the
> runs. [...]
> I think the issue here is that determines whether s1 can finish its
> check_exclusion_or_unique_constraint() check with one retry is whether
> it reaches it
Hi,
I'm currently fighting with a race I'm observing in about 1/4 of the
runs. I get:
@@ -361,16 +361,18 @@
locktype mode granted
speculative tokenShareLock f
speculative tokenExclusiveLock t
step controller_unlock_2_4: SELECT pg_advisory_unlock(2, 4);
pg_advisory_unloc
Hi,
On 2019-08-21 13:59:00 -0700, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> >> > +step "controller_print_speculative_locks" { SELECT
> >> locktype,classid,objid,mode,granted FROM pg_locks WHERE
> >> locktype='speculative
> >> > +token' ORDER BY granted; }
> >>
> >> I think showing the speculative locks is possibl
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 01:59:00PM -0700, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> So, what should we do about this? Do you agree that the "controller_show"
> step would be a problem?
Andres, it seems to me that this is waiting some input from you.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 1:47 PM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 11:48 AM Andres Freund wrote:
>
>> > diff --git a/src/test/isolation/specs/insert-conflict-specconflict.spec
>> b/src/test/isolation/specs/insert-conflict-specconflict.spec
>> > index 3a70484fc2..7f29fb9d02 1006
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 11:48 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> > diff --git a/src/test/isolation/specs/insert-conflict-specconflict.spec
> b/src/test/isolation/specs/insert-conflict-specconflict.spec
> > index 3a70484fc2..7f29fb9d02 100644
> > --- a/src/test/isolation/specs/insert-conflict-specconflict.
Hi,
On 2019-06-05 15:49:47 -0700, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 8:46 PM Melanie Plageman
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Good idea.
> > I squashed the changes I suggested in previous emails, Ashwin's patch, my
> > suggested updates to that patch, and the index order check all into one
> >
On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 8:46 PM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
>
> Good idea.
> I squashed the changes I suggested in previous emails, Ashwin's patch, my
> suggested updates to that patch, and the index order check all into one
> updated
> patch attached.
>
>
I've updated this patch to make it apply on
On 2019-May-17, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> I realized that the numbers at the front probably indicate which patch
> it is in a patch set and not the version, so, if that is the case, a
> renamed patch -- second version but the only patch needed if you are
> applying to master. Is this right?
That
On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 8:46 PM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
>
> I squashed the changes I suggested in previous emails, Ashwin's patch, my
> suggested updates to that patch, and the index order check all into one
> updated
> patch attached.
>
>
I realized that the numbers at the front probably indicat
On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 2:03 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2019-05-16 13:59:47 -0700, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> > On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 10:32 PM Ashwin Agrawal
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > The second index would help to hold the session after inserting the
> tuple
> > > in unique index but
Hi,
On 2019-05-16 13:59:47 -0700, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 10:32 PM Ashwin Agrawal wrote:
>
> >
> > The second index would help to hold the session after inserting the tuple
> > in unique index but before completing the speculative insert. Hence, helps
> > to create the
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 10:32 PM Ashwin Agrawal wrote:
>
> The second index would help to hold the session after inserting the tuple
> in unique index but before completing the speculative insert. Hence, helps
> to create the condition easily. I believe order of index insertion is
> helping here
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 8:36 PM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 6:50 PM Andres Freund wrote:
>
>>
>> > I noticed that there is not a test case which would cover the
>> speculative
>> > wait
>> > codepath. This seems much more challenging, however, it does seem like a
>> > wor
Hi,
On 2019-05-15 20:35:49 -0700, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> > > I noticed that there is not a test case which would cover the speculative
> > > wait
> > > codepath. This seems much more challenging, however, it does seem like a
> > > worthwhile test to have.
> >
> > Shouldn't be that hard to creat
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 6:50 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > Also, it would make the test easier to understand for me if, for
> instances
> > of the
> > word "lock" in the test description and comments, you specified locktype
> --
> > e.g.
> > advisory lock.
> > I got confused between the speculative
Hi,
On 2019-05-15 18:34:15 -0700, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> So, I recognize this has already been merged. However, after reviewing the
> test,
> I believe there is a typo in the second permutation.
>
> # Test that speculative locks are correctly acquired and released, s2
> # inserts, s1 updates.
On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 12:19 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2019-05-10 14:40:38 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2019-05-01 11:41:48 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > I'm imagining something like
> > >
> > > if (pg_try_advisory_xact_lock(1))
> > > pg_advisory_xact_lock(2);
> > > else
Hi,
On 2019-05-10 14:40:38 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2019-05-01 11:41:48 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > I'm imagining something like
> >
> > if (pg_try_advisory_xact_lock(1))
> > pg_advisory_xact_lock(2);
> > else
> > pg_advisory_xact_lock(1);
> >
> > in t1_lock_func. If you then
Hi,
On 2019-05-01 11:41:48 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> I'm imagining something like
>
> if (pg_try_advisory_xact_lock(1))
> pg_advisory_xact_lock(2);
> else
> pg_advisory_xact_lock(1);
>
> in t1_lock_func. If you then make the session something roughly like
>
> s1: pg_advisory_xact_lo
Hi,
On 2019-04-30 18:34:42 -0700, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 5:22 PM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> >
> > Not easily so - that's why the ON CONFLICT patch didn't add code
> > coverage for it :(. I wonder if you could whip something up by having
> > another non-unique expression i
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 7:14 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> I think it'd be nice to have a set of macros that can create wait
> points in the C code that isolation tests can control, in a special
> build. Perhaps there could be shm hash table of named wait points in
> shared memory; if DEBUG_WAIT_POIN
On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 12:16 PM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
> s1: insert into t1 values(1, 'someval') on conflict(id) do update set val =
> 'someotherval';
> s1: pause in ExecInsert before calling ExecInsertIndexTuples
> s2: insert into t1 values(1, 'someval');
> s2: continue
>
> We don't know of a w
Hi,
On April 30, 2019 6:43:08 PM PDT, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 5:16 PM Melanie Plageman
> wrote:
>> Can anyone think of a good way to put this codepath under test?
>
>During the initial development of ON CONFLICT, speculative insertion
>itself was tested using custom stress
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 5:16 PM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
> Can anyone think of a good way to put this codepath under test?
During the initial development of ON CONFLICT, speculative insertion
itself was tested using custom stress testing that you can still get
here:
https://github.com/petergeoghe
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 5:22 PM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Not easily so - that's why the ON CONFLICT patch didn't add code
> coverage for it :(. I wonder if you could whip something up by having
> another non-unique expression index, where the expression acquires a
> advisory lock? If that advisor
Hi,
On 2019-04-30 17:15:55 -0700, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> Today, while poking around the table_complete_speculative code which Ashwin
> mentioned in [1], we were trying to understand when exactly we would
> complete a
> speculative insert by aborting.
(FWIW, it's on my todo queue to look at thi
Today, while poking around the table_complete_speculative code which Ashwin
mentioned in [1], we were trying to understand when exactly we would
complete a
speculative insert by aborting.
We added a logging message to heapam_tuple_complete_speculative before it
calls
heap_abort_speculative and ran
31 matches
Mail list logo
