On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 9:18 AM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, June 22, 2021 11:08 AM Japin Li wrote:
> > > Your patch appears to be on the lines we discussed but I would prefer
> > > to get it done after Beta2 as this is just a minor code improvement.
> > > Can you please sen
On Tuesday, June 22, 2021 11:08 AM Japin Li wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2021 at 19:06, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 4:09 PM Japin Li wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 21 Jun 2021 at 17:54, Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 2:06 PM Japin Li wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Mon,
On Mon, 21 Jun 2021 at 19:06, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 4:09 PM Japin Li wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 21 Jun 2021 at 17:54, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 2:06 PM Japin Li wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, 21 Jun 2021 at 16:22, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> >> > On Mon, Jun 21, 2
On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 4:09 PM Japin Li wrote:
>
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2021 at 17:54, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 2:06 PM Japin Li wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 21 Jun 2021 at 16:22, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 1:30 PM Japin Li wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Sat, 19
On Mon, 21 Jun 2021 at 17:54, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 2:06 PM Japin Li wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 21 Jun 2021 at 16:22, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 1:30 PM Japin Li wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, 19 Jun 2021 at 17:18, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> >> > On Fri, Jun 18,
On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 2:06 PM Japin Li wrote:
>
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2021 at 16:22, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 1:30 PM Japin Li wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, 19 Jun 2021 at 17:18, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 9:18 AM Amit Kapila
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Or we
On Mon, 21 Jun 2021 at 16:22, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 1:30 PM Japin Li wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 19 Jun 2021 at 17:18, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 9:18 AM Amit Kapila
>> > wrote:
>>
>> Or we can free the memory owned by indexoidlist after check whether it
On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 1:30 PM Japin Li wrote:
>
> On Sat, 19 Jun 2021 at 17:18, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 9:18 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> Or we can free the memory owned by indexoidlist after check whether it is NIL,
> because we do not use it in the later.
>
Valid point.
On Sat, 19 Jun 2021 at 17:18, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 9:18 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>>
>> > I thought it was cheap enough to check that the relation we open is an
>> > index, because if it is not, we'll segfault when accessing fields of the
>> > relation->rd_index struct. I
On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 9:18 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> > I thought it was cheap enough to check that the relation we open is an
> > index, because if it is not, we'll segfault when accessing fields of the
> > relation->rd_index struct. I wouldn't necessarily advocate doing any
> > really expen
On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 9:26 PM Mark Dilger
wrote:
>
> > On Jun 17, 2021, at 6:40 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > I think such a problem won't happen because we are using historic
> > snapshots in this context. We rely on that in a similar way in
> > reorderbuffer.c, see ReorderBufferProcessTXN.
>
> On Jun 17, 2021, at 6:40 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> I think such a problem won't happen because we are using historic
> snapshots in this context. We rely on that in a similar way in
> reorderbuffer.c, see ReorderBufferProcessTXN.
I think you are right, but that's the part I have trouble ful
On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 6:50 PM Mark Dilger
wrote:
>
> > On Jun 17, 2021, at 3:39 AM, osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> >
> > For the 1st check, isn't it better to use RelationIsValid() ?
>
> Yes, you are right.
>
> > Additionally, In what kind of actual scenario, did you think that
> > we come
> On Jun 17, 2021, at 3:39 AM, osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com wrote:
>
> For the 1st check, isn't it better to use RelationIsValid() ?
Yes, you are right.
> Additionally, In what kind of actual scenario, did you think that
> we come to the part to "log a complaint" ?
The way that RelationGetInd
On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 4:09 PM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> On Thursday, June 17, 2021 2:43 PM Mark Dilger
> wrote:
> > > On Jun 16, 2021, at 10:19 PM, osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> > >
> > > I started to analyze your report and
> > > will reply after my idea to your modificati
On Thursday, June 17, 2021 2:43 PM Mark Dilger
wrote:
> > On Jun 16, 2021, at 10:19 PM, osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> >
> > I started to analyze your report and
> > will reply after my idea to your modification is settled.
>
> Thank you.
I'll share my first analysis.
> In commit e7eea52b
> On Jun 16, 2021, at 10:19 PM, osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com wrote:
>
> I started to analyze your report and
> will reply after my idea to your modification is settled.
Thank you.
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On Thursday, June 17, 2021 1:31 PM Mark Dilger
wrote:
> In commit e7eea52b2d, you introduced a new function,
> RelationGetIdentityKeyBitmap(), which uses some odd logic for determining
> if a relation has a replica identity index. That code segfaults under certain
> conditions. A test case to d
Hi Amit,
In commit e7eea52b2d, you introduced a new function,
RelationGetIdentityKeyBitmap(), which uses some odd logic for determining if a
relation has a replica identity index. That code segfaults under certain
conditions. A test case to demonstrate that is attached. Prior to patching
th
19 matches
Mail list logo
