On Wed, 30 Oct 2024 at 12:01, Yushi Ogiwara
wrote:
>
> I made a new patch (skip_xid_correctly.diff) that incorporates the
> points we discussed:
>
> 1. Fix the issue that consume_xids consumes nxids+1 XIDs.
> 2. Update lastxid when calling GetTopFullTransactionId() to support
> nxids==1 case.
> 3.
On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 12:00 AM Yushi Ogiwara
wrote:
>
> I made a new patch (skip_xid_correctly.diff) that incorporates the
> points we discussed:
>
> 1. Fix the issue that consume_xids consumes nxids+1 XIDs.
> 2. Update lastxid when calling GetTopFullTransactionId() to support
> nxids==1 case.
>
I made a new patch (skip_xid_correctly.diff) that incorporates the
points we discussed:
1. Fix the issue that consume_xids consumes nxids+1 XIDs.
2. Update lastxid when calling GetTopFullTransactionId() to support
nxids==1 case.
3. Forbid consume_xids when nxids==0.
4. Add comments explaining
On 2024/10/29 18:00, Yushi Ogiwara wrote:
consumed = XidSkip(nextXid);
if (consumed > 0)
TransamVariables->nextXid.value += (uint64) consumed;
BTW, the code snippet above in consume_xids_shortcut() could potentially set
the next XID to a value below FirstNorm
consumed = XidSkip(nextXid);
if (consumed > 0)
TransamVariables->nextXid.value += (uint64) consumed;
BTW, the code snippet above in consume_xids_shortcut() could
potentially set
the next XID to a value below FirstNormalTransactionId? If yes, we
should account f
On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 7:55 AM Fujii Masao wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2024/10/24 5:23, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >> if (xids_left > 2000 &&
> >> consumed - last_reported_at < REPORT_INTERVAL &&
> >> MyProc->subxidStatus.overflowed)
> >> {
> >>
On 2024/10/24 5:23, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
if (xids_left > 2000 &&
consumed - last_reported_at < REPORT_INTERVAL &&
MyProc->subxidStatus.overflowed)
{
int64 consumed_by_shortcut = consume_xids_shortcut();
On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 11:47 PM Fujii Masao
wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2024/10/18 14:57, Yushi Ogiwara wrote:
> > In conclusion, I agree that:
> >
> > * Update lastxid with GetTopTransactionId().
> > * consume_xids with 0 should raise an error.
> >
> > I have attached a new patch that incorporates you
On 2024/10/18 14:57, Yushi Ogiwara wrote:
In conclusion, I agree that:
* Update lastxid with GetTopTransactionId().
* consume_xids with 0 should raise an error.
I have attached a new patch that incorporates your suggestions.
One concern in this discussion is that the return value of th
On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 10:06 PM Yushi Ogiwara
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Thank you for your comment.
>
> Regarding the first patch, I believe it works correctly when
> consume_xids(1) is called. This is because the lastxid variable in the
> consume_xids_common function is initialized as lastxid =
> Read
Hi,
Thank you for your comment.
Regarding the first patch, I believe it works correctly when
consume_xids(1) is called. This is because the lastxid variable in the
consume_xids_common function is initialized as lastxid =
ReadNextFullTransactionId(), where the ReadNextFullTransactionId
funct
Hi,
Thank you for the report.
On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 6:51 PM Yushi Ogiwara
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I found that the consume_xids function incorrectly advances XIDs as
> shown:
>
> postgres=# select txid_current();
> txid_current
> --
> 746
> (1 row)
>
> postgres=# select consu
Hi,
I found that the consume_xids function incorrectly advances XIDs as
shown:
postgres=# select txid_current();
txid_current
--
746
(1 row)
postgres=# select consume_xids('100');
consume_xids
--
847
(1 row)
In the example, the consume_xids function
13 matches
Mail list logo
