On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 12:24 PM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 3:53 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 9:44 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > +1 on 'update_origin_differs' instead of 'update_origins_differ' as
> > > > > the former is somewhat
On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 3:53 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 9:44 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> wrote:
> >
> > > > +1 on 'update_origin_differs' instead of 'update_origins_differ' as
> > > > the former is somewhat similar to other conflict names 'insert_exists'
> > > > and 'update_
On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 9:44 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> > > +1 on 'update_origin_differs' instead of 'update_origins_differ' as
> > > the former is somewhat similar to other conflict names 'insert_exists'
> > > and 'update_exists'.
> >
> > Since we reached a consensus on this, I am attachi
On Wednesday, August 28, 2024 12:11 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
> > > > Peter Smith mentioned to me off-list that the names of conflict
> > > > types 'update_differ' and 'delete_differ' are not intuitive as
> > > > compared to all other conflict types like insert_exists,
> > > > update_missin
On Wednesday, August 28, 2024 11:30 AM shveta malik
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 4:37 AM Peter Smith
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 7:52 PM Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 2:21 PM Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 1:33 PM Pet
On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 4:37 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 7:52 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 2:21 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 1:33 PM Peter Smith wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Do you think the documentation for the 'column_valu
On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 7:52 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 2:21 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 1:33 PM Peter Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > Do you think the documentation for the 'column_value' parameter of the
> > > conflict logging should say that the displ
On Monday, August 26, 2024 6:36 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 3:22 PM Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 2:21 PM Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 1:33 PM Peter Smith
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Do you think the documentation for the '
On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 3:22 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 2:21 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 1:33 PM Peter Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > Do you think the documentation for the 'column_value' parameter of the
> > > conflict logging should say that the displ
On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 2:21 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 1:33 PM Peter Smith wrote:
> >
> > Do you think the documentation for the 'column_value' parameter of the
> > conflict logging should say that the displayed value might be
> > truncated?
> >
>
> I updated the patch to
On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 1:33 PM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> Do you think the documentation for the 'column_value' parameter of the
> conflict logging should say that the displayed value might be
> truncated?
>
I updated the patch to mention this and pushed it.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
Hi Hou-san.
I was experimenting with some conflict logging and found that large
column values are truncated in the log DETAIL.
E.g. Below I have a table where I inserted a 3000 character text value
'bigbigbig..."
Then I caused a replication conflict.
test_sub=# delete fr2024-08-22 17:50:17.181
On Thursday, August 22, 2024 11:25 AM shveta malik
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 3:04 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Attach the V20 patch set which addressed above, Shveta[1][2] and
> > Kuroda-san's[3] comments.
> >
>
> Thank You for the patch. Few comments:
Thanks for the
On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 3:04 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
>
> Attach the V20 patch set which addressed above, Shveta[1][2] and
> Kuroda-san's[3]
> comments.
>
Thank You for the patch. Few comments:
1)
+ The key section includes the key values of the local tuple that
violated a unique constr
HI Hous-San,. Here is my review of the v20-0001 docs patch.
1. Restructure into sections
> I think that's a good idea. But I preferred to do that in a separate
> patch(maybe a third patch after the first and second are RFC), because AFAICS
> we would need to adjust some existing docs which falls
On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 8:35 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, August 21, 2024 9:33 AM Jonathan S. Katz
> wrote:
> > On 8/6/24 4:15 AM, Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for the idea! I thought about few styles based on the suggested
> > > format, what do you think abou
On Wednesday, August 21, 2024 2:45 PM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> Here are some review comments for the v19-0001 docs patch.
>
> The content seemed reasonable, but IMO it should be presented quite
> differently.
>
>
>
> 1. Use sub-sections
>
> I expect this logical replication "Conflicts" sec
On Wednesday, August 21, 2024 1:31 PM Kuroda, Hayato/黒田 隼人
wrote:
>
> Dear Hou,
>
> Thanks for updating the patch! I think the patch is mostly good.
> Here are minor comments.
Thanks for the comments !
>
> 02.
> ```
> +
> + The key section in the second sentence of the
> ...
> ```
On Wednesday, August 21, 2024 11:40 AM shveta malik
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 4:45 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> wrote:>
Thanks for the comments!
> 4)
> Shall we give an example LOG message in the end?
I feel the current insert_exists log in conflict section seems
sufficient as an exam
Here are some review comments for the v19-0001 docs patch.
The content seemed reasonable, but IMO it should be presented quite differently.
1. Use sub-sections
I expect this logical replication "Conflicts" section is going to
evolve into something much bigger. Surely, it's not going to be
On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 4:45 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> Here are the remaining patches.
>
> 0001 adds additional doc to explain the log format.
> 0002 collects statistics about conflicts in logical replication.
>
0002 has not changed since I last reviewed it. It seems all my old
comments
Dear Hou,
Thanks for updating the patch! I think the patch is mostly good.
Here are minor comments.
0001:
01.
```
+
+LOG: conflict detected on relation "schemaname.tablename":
conflict=conflict_type
+DETAIL: detailed explaination.
...
+
```
I don't think the label is correct. label should b
On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 4:45 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> Here are the remaining patches.
>
> 0001 adds additional doc to explain the log format.
Thanks for the patch. Please find few comments on 001:
1)
+Key (column_name, ...)=(column_name, ...);
existing local tuple (column_name, ...)=(c
On Wednesday, August 21, 2024 9:33 AM Jonathan S. Katz
wrote:
> On 8/6/24 4:15 AM, Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the idea! I thought about few styles based on the suggested
> > format, what do you think about the following ?
>
> Thanks for proposing formats. Before commenting on
On 8/6/24 4:15 AM, Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) wrote:
Thanks for the idea! I thought about few styles based on the suggested format,
what do you think about the following ?
Thanks for proposing formats. Before commenting on the specifics, I do
want to ensure that we're thinking about the following f
On Tuesday, August 20, 2024 12:37 PM Amit Kapila
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 4:16 PM Amit Kapila
> Pushed.
Thanks for pushing.
Here are the remaining patches.
0001 adds additional doc to explain the log format.
0002 collects statistics about conflicts in logical replication.
Best Reg
On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 4:16 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> > Rest looks good.
> >
>
> Thanks for the review and testing.
>
Pushed.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 3:03 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 12:32 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Thanks for reporting the bug. I have fixed it and ran pgindent in V17 patch.
> > I also adjusted few comments and fixed a typo.
> >
>
> Thanks for the patch. Re-teste
On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 12:32 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
>
> Thanks for reporting the bug. I have fixed it and ran pgindent in V17 patch.
> I also adjusted few comments and fixed a typo.
>
Thanks for the patch. Re-tested it, all scenarios seem to work well now.
I see that this version has
On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 12:09 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 11:54 AM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 11:37 AM Amit Kapila
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 9:08 AM shveta malik
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Aug 18, 2024 at 2:27 PM Zh
On Monday, August 19, 2024 2:40 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 11:54 AM shveta malik
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 11:37 AM Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 9:08 AM shveta malik
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Aug 18, 2024 at 2:27 PM Zhiji
On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 11:54 AM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 11:37 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 9:08 AM shveta malik wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, Aug 18, 2024 at 2:27 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Attach the V16 patch which addre
On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 11:37 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 9:08 AM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Aug 18, 2024 at 2:27 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Attach the V16 patch which addressed the comments we agreed on.
> > > I will add a doc patch to explain
On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 9:08 AM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Sun, Aug 18, 2024 at 2:27 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> wrote:
> >
> > Attach the V16 patch which addressed the comments we agreed on.
> > I will add a doc patch to explain the log format after the 0001 is RFC.
> >
>
> Thank You for addressin
On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 9:07 AM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Sun, Aug 18, 2024 at 2:27 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> wrote:
> >
> > Attach the V16 patch which addressed the comments we agreed on.
> > I will add a doc patch to explain the log format after the 0001 is RFC.
> >
>
> Thank You for addressin
On Friday, August 16, 2024 7:47 PM Michail Nikolaev
wrote:
> > I think you might misunderstand the behavior of CheckAndReportConflict(),
> > even if it found a conflict, it still inserts the tuple into the index which
> > means the change is anyway applied.
>
> > In the above conditions where a
On Sun, Aug 18, 2024 at 2:27 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> Attach the V16 patch which addressed the comments we agreed on.
> I will add a doc patch to explain the log format after the 0001 is RFC.
>
Thank You for addressing comments. Please see this scenario:
create table tab1(pk int primar
On Friday, August 16, 2024 5:25 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 12:19 PM Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 11:48 AM shveta malik
> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 10:46 AM shveta malik
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 3)
> > > > For update_exists(), we
On Friday, August 16, 2024 2:49 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
>
> >
> >
> > One more comment:
> >
> > 5)
> > For insert/update_exists, the sequence is:
> > Key .. ; existing local tuple .. ; remote tuple ...
> >
> > For rest of the conflicts, sequence is:
> > Existing local tuple
On Friday, August 16, 2024 2:31 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 10:46 AM shveta malik
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 15, 2024 at 12:47 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks. I have checked and merged the changes. Here is the V15 patch
> > > which addressed above
Hello!
> I think you might misunderstand the behavior of CheckAndReportConflict(),
even
> if it found a conflict, it still inserts the tuple into the index which
means
> the change is anyway applied.
> In the above conditions where a concurrent tuple insertion is removed
> or rolled back before C
On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 12:19 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 11:48 AM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 10:46 AM shveta malik
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > 3)
> > > For update_exists(), we dump:
> > > Key (a, b)=(2, 1)
> > >
> > > For delete_missing, update_missing
On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 11:48 AM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 10:46 AM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > 3)
> > For update_exists(), we dump:
> > Key (a, b)=(2, 1)
> >
> > For delete_missing, update_missing, update_differ, we dump:
> > Replica identity (a, b)=(2, 1).
> >
> > For upda
On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 10:46 AM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2024 at 12:47 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks. I have checked and merged the changes. Here is the V15 patch
> > which addressed above comments.
>
> Thanks for the patch. Please find few comments and queries:
On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 10:46 AM shveta malik wrote:
>
> 3)
> For update_exists(), we dump:
> Key (a, b)=(2, 1)
>
> For delete_missing, update_missing, update_differ, we dump:
> Replica identity (a, b)=(2, 1).
>
> For update_exists as well, shouldn't we dump 'Replica identity'? Only
> for insert c
On Thu, Aug 15, 2024 at 12:47 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> Thanks. I have checked and merged the changes. Here is the V15 patch
> which addressed above comments.
Thanks for the patch. Please find few comments and queries:
1)
For various conflicts , we have these in Logs:
Replica identity (
On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 7:45 PM Michail Nikolaev
wrote:
>
> > This is as expected, and we have documented this in the code comments. We
> > don't
> > need to report a conflict if the conflicting tuple has been removed or
> > updated
> > due to concurrent transaction. The same is true if the tran
On Wednesday, August 14, 2024 10:15 PM Michail Nikolaev
wrote:
> > This is as expected, and we have documented this in the code comments. We
> > don't
> > need to report a conflict if the conflicting tuple has been removed or
> > updated
> > due to concurrent transaction. The same is true if t
On Wednesday, August 14, 2024 7:02 PM Amit Kapila
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 8:05 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> wrote:
> >
> > Here is the V14 patch.
> >
>
> Review comments:
> 1.
> ReportApplyConflict()
> {
> ...
> + ereport(elevel,
> + errcode(ERRCODE_INTEGRITY_CONSTRAINT_VIOLATION),
> +
Hello, Hou!
> This is as expected, and we have documented this in the code comments. We
don't
> need to report a conflict if the conflicting tuple has been removed or
updated
> due to concurrent transaction. The same is true if the transaction that
> inserted the conflicting tuple is rolled back b
On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 8:05 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> Here is the V14 patch.
>
Review comments:
1.
ReportApplyConflict()
{
...
+ ereport(elevel,
+ errcode(ERRCODE_INTEGRITY_CONSTRAINT_VIOLATION),
+ errmsg("conflict detected on relation \"%s.%s\": conflict=%s",
+get_namespace_name(Re
On Tuesday, August 13, 2024 7:04 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 10:09 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> wrote:
> >
> > Here is V13 patch set which addressed above comments.
> >
>
> 1.
> +ReportApplyConflict(int elevel, ConflictType type, EState *estate,
> +ResultRelInfo *relinfo,
>
On Tuesday, August 13, 2024 7:33 PM Michail Nikolaev
wrote:
> I think this is an independent issue which can be discussed separately in the
> original thread[1], and I have replied to that thread.
>Thanks! But it seems like this part is still relevant to the current thread:
> > It also seems
Hello!
> I think this is an independent issue which can be discussed separately in
the
> original thread[1], and I have replied to that thread.
Thanks! But it seems like this part is still relevant to the current thread:
> It also seems possible that a conflict could be resolved by a concurrent
On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 10:09 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> Here is V13 patch set which addressed above comments.
>
1.
+ReportApplyConflict(int elevel, ConflictType type, EState *estate,
+ ResultRelInfo *relinfo,
The change looks better but it would still be better to keep elevel
and type a
On Monday, August 12, 2024 7:41 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 12:29 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> wrote:
> >
> > Here is the V12 patch that improved the log format as discussed.
> >
>
> Review comments:
Thanks for the comments.
> ===
> 1. The patch doesn't display t
On Mon, Aug 5, 2024 at 10:05 AM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 5, 2024 at 9:19 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 6:28 PM Nisha Moond wrote:
> > >
> > > Performance tests done on the v8-0001 and v8-0002 patches, available at
> > > [1].
> > >
> >
> > Thanks for doing the d
On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 12:29 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> Here is the V12 patch that improved the log format as discussed.
>
Review comments:
===
1. The patch doesn't display the remote tuple for delete_differ case.
However, it shows the remote tuple correctly for update_differ.
On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 12:29 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> Here is the V12 patch that improved the log format as discussed.
>
*
diff --git a/src/test/subscription/out b/src/test/subscription/out
new file mode 100644
index 00..2b68e9264a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/src/test/subscription/out
@
On Friday, August 9, 2024 7:45 PM Michail Nikolaev
wrote:
> There are some comments on this patch related to issue [0]. In short: any
> DirtySnapshot index scan may fail to find an existing tuple in the case of a
> concurrent update.
>
> - FindConflictTuple may return false negative result in t
Hello, everyone.
There are some comments on this patch related to issue [0].
In short: any DirtySnapshot index scan may fail to find an existing tuple
in the case of a concurrent update.
- FindConflictTuple may return false negative result in the case of
concurrent update because ExecCheckIndexCo
On Wednesday, August 7, 2024 1:24 PM Amit Kapila
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2024 at 1:45 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> > Thanks for the idea! I thought about few styles based on the suggested
> format,
> > what do you think about the following ?
> >
> > ---
> > Version 1
> > ---
> > LOG: CONFLICT: in
On Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 1:08 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, August 7, 2024 3:00 PM Kuroda, Hayato/黒田 隼人
> wrote:
> >
> > While playing with the 0003 patch (the patch may not be ready), I found that
> > when the insert_exists event occurred, both apply_error_count and
> > insert_
On Wednesday, August 7, 2024 3:00 PM Kuroda, Hayato/黒田 隼人
wrote:
>
> While playing with the 0003 patch (the patch may not be ready), I found that
> when the insert_exists event occurred, both apply_error_count and
> insert_exists_count was counted.
Thanks for testing. 0003 is a separate feature
Dear Hou,
While playing with the 0003 patch (the patch may not be ready), I found that
when the insert_exists event occurred, both apply_error_count and
insert_exists_count
was counted.
```
-- insert a tuple on the subscriber
subscriber =# INSERT INTO tab VALUES (1);
-- insert the same tuple on
On Tue, Aug 6, 2024 at 1:45 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> On Monday, August 5, 2024 6:52 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Aug 4, 2024 at 1:22 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Friday, August 2, 2024 7:03 PM Amit Kapila
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > Here is the V11 pat
Dear Hou,
>
> Here is the V11 patch set which addressed above and Kuroda-san[1] comments.
>
Thanks for updating the patch. I read 0001 again and I don't have critical
comments for now.
I found some cosmetic issues (e.g., lines should be shorter than 80 columns) and
attached the fix patch. Feel
On Monday, August 5, 2024 6:52 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Sun, Aug 4, 2024 at 1:22 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, August 2, 2024 7:03 PM Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> > >
> >
> > Here is the V11 patch set which addressed above and Kuroda-san[1]
> comments.
> >
>
> A few design-
On Sun, Aug 4, 2024 at 1:22 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> On Friday, August 2, 2024 7:03 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
>
> Here is the V11 patch set which addressed above and Kuroda-san[1] comments.
>
A few design-level points:
*
@@ -525,10 +602,33 @@ ExecSimpleRelationInsert(ResultRelInfo *re
On Mon, Aug 5, 2024 at 10:05 AM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 5, 2024 at 9:19 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 6:28 PM Nisha Moond wrote:
> > >
> > > Test Summary -
> > > -- The duration for case-2 was reduced to 2-3 minutes, matching the
> > > times of the other cases.
On Mon, Aug 5, 2024 at 9:19 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 6:28 PM Nisha Moond wrote:
> >
> > Performance tests done on the v8-0001 and v8-0002 patches, available at [1].
> >
>
> Thanks for doing the detailed tests for this patch.
>
> > The purpose of the performance tests is to
On Sun, Aug 4, 2024 at 1:04 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> On Friday, July 26, 2024 2:26 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> >
> > I agree that displaying pk where applicable should be okay as we display it
> > at
> > other places but the same won't be possible when we do sequence scan to
> > fetch
On Sun, Aug 4, 2024 at 1:22 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> Here is the V11 patch set which addressed above and Kuroda-san[1] comments.
>
Thanks for the patch. Few comments:
1)
Can you please recheck conflict.h inclusion. I think, these are not required:
#include "access/xlogdefs.h"
#include
On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 6:28 PM Nisha Moond wrote:
>
> Performance tests done on the v8-0001 and v8-0002 patches, available at [1].
>
Thanks for doing the detailed tests for this patch.
> The purpose of the performance tests is to measure the impact on
> logical replication with track_commit_time
On Friday, July 26, 2024 2:26 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 9:39 AM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 7:47 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wednesday, July 10, 2024 5:39 PM shveta malik
> wrote:
> > > >
> >
> > > > 2)
> > > > Another case
Performance tests done on the v8-0001 and v8-0002 patches, available at [1].
The purpose of the performance tests is to measure the impact on
logical replication with track_commit_timestamp enabled, as this
involves fetching the commit_ts data to determine
delete_differ/update_differ conflicts.
F
On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 5:23 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 2:26 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
> wrote:
> >
> > 04. general
> >
> > According to the documentation [1], there is another constraint "exclude",
> > which
> > can cause another type of conflict. But this pattern cannot b
On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 2:26 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> 04. general
>
> According to the documentation [1], there is another constraint "exclude",
> which
> can cause another type of conflict. But this pattern cannot be logged in
> detail.
>
As per docs, "exclusion constraints can spe
Dear Hou,
Let me contribute the great feature. I read only the 0001 patch and here are
initial comments.
01. logical-replication.sgml
track_commit_timestamp must be specified only on the subscriber, but it is not
clarified.
Can you write down that?
02. logical-replication.sgml
I felt that th
On Wednesday, July 31, 2024 1:36 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 7:40 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
>
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > 2)
> > > apply_handle_delete_internal()
> > >
> > > --Do we need to check "(!edata->mtstate ||
> > > edata->mtstate->operation != CMD_UPDATE)" in the else
On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 7:40 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> Here is the V8 patch set. It includes the following changes:
>
A few more comments:
1. I think in FindConflictTuple() the patch is locking the tuple so
that after finding a conflict if there is a concurrent delete, it can
retry to fi
On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 7:40 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> >
> > 2)
> > apply_handle_delete_internal()
> >
> > --Do we need to check "(!edata->mtstate || edata->mtstate->operation !=
> > CMD_UPDATE)" in the else part as well? Can there be a scenario where during
> > update flow, it is trying
On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 11:44 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> Here is the V7 patch set that addressed all the comments so far[1][2][3].
Thanks for the patch, few comments:
1)
build_index_value_desc()
/* Assume the index has been locked */
indexDesc = index_open(indexoid, NoLoc
On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 1:49 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> > On Monday, July 29, 2024 6:59 PM Dilip Kumar
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 11:44 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > I was going through v7-0001, and I have some initial comments.
> >
> > Than
> On Monday, July 29, 2024 6:59 PM Dilip Kumar
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 11:44 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> > wrote:
> > >
> >
> > I was going through v7-0001, and I have some initial comments.
>
> Thanks for the comments !
>
> >
> > @@ -536,11 +542,9 @@ ExecCheckIndexConstraints(Re
On Monday, July 29, 2024 6:59 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 11:44 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> wrote:
> >
>
> I was going through v7-0001, and I have some initial comments.
Thanks for the comments !
>
> @@ -536,11 +542,9 @@ ExecCheckIndexConstraints(ResultRelInfo
> *resultRe
On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 9:31 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 4:28 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 3:56 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > One more thing we need to consider is whether we should LOG or ERROR
> > > for update/delete_differ conflicts. If
On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 11:44 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
I was going through v7-0001, and I have some initial comments.
@@ -536,11 +542,9 @@ ExecCheckIndexConstraints(ResultRelInfo
*resultRelInfo, TupleTableSlot *slot,
ExprContext *econtext;
Datum values[INDEX_MAX_KEYS];
bool isnull[
On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 11:44 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> On Friday, July 26, 2024 7:34 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 4:12 PM Amit Kapila
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > A few more comments:
>
> Thanks for the comments.
>
> > 1.
> > For duplicate key, the patch reports conf
On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 4:28 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 3:56 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
>
> > One more thing we need to consider is whether we should LOG or ERROR
> > for update/delete_differ conflicts. If we LOG as the patch is doing
> > then we are intentionally overwriti
On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 4:12 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 12:04 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> wrote:
> >
> > Here is the V6 patch set which addressed Shveta and Nisha's comments
> > in [1][2][3][4].
> >
>
> Do we need an option detect_conflict for logging conflicts? The
> possibl
On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 3:56 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 3:37 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 3:03 PM Nisha Moond
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 12:04 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> > > wrote:
> > > > Here is the V6 patch set which addres
On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 3:37 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 3:03 PM Nisha Moond wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 12:04 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> > wrote:
> > > Here is the V6 patch set which addressed Shveta and Nisha's comments
> > > in [1][2][3][4].
> >
> > Thanks for
On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 3:03 PM Nisha Moond wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 12:04 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> wrote:
> > Here is the V6 patch set which addressed Shveta and Nisha's comments
> > in [1][2][3][4].
>
> Thanks for the patch.
> I tested the v6-0001 patch with partition table scenarios
On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 12:04 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
> Here is the V6 patch set which addressed Shveta and Nisha's comments
> in [1][2][3][4].
Thanks for the patch.
I tested the v6-0001 patch with partition table scenarios. Please
review the following scenario where Pub updates a tuple, c
On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 9:39 AM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 7:47 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, July 10, 2024 5:39 PM shveta malik
> > wrote:
> > >
>
> > > 2)
> > > Another case which might confuse user:
> > >
> > > CREATE TABLE t1 (pk integer primary
On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 12:04 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> On Monday, July 22, 2024 5:03 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 2:06 PM shveta malik wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 7:52 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Attach the V5 patch set
On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 7:47 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, July 10, 2024 5:39 PM shveta malik
> wrote:
> >
> > 2)
> > Another case which might confuse user:
> >
> > CREATE TABLE t1 (pk integer primary key, val1 integer, val2 integer);
> >
> > On PUB: insert into t1 values(1,1
On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 12:04 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> Here is the V6 patch set which addressed Shveta and Nisha's comments
> in [1][2][3][4].
>
Do we need an option detect_conflict for logging conflicts? The
possible reason to include such an option is to avoid any overhead
during appl
On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 7:52 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> Attach the V5 patch set which changed the following:
>
Tested v5-0001 patch, and it fails to detect the update_exists
conflict for a setup where Pub has a non-partitioned table and Sub has
the same table partitioned.
Below is a testc
1 - 100 of 109 matches
Mail list logo
