On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 3:24 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
>
> I think you can get rid of SYNC_UNLINK_REQUEST, sync_unlinkfiletag,
> mdunlinkfiletag as these are all now unused.
Correct.
> Are there any special hazards here if the plan in [1] goes ahead?
IMHO we should not have any problem. In fact,
I think you can get rid of SYNC_UNLINK_REQUEST, sync_unlinkfiletag,
mdunlinkfiletag as these are all now unused.
Are there any special hazards here if the plan in [1] goes ahead? If
the relfilenode allocation is logged and replayed then it should be
fine to crash and recover multiple times in a ro
On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 4:27 PM Amul Sul wrote:
>
Hi Amul,
Thanks for the review, actually based on some comments from Robert we
have planned to make some design changes. So I am planning to work on
that for the July commitfest. I will try to incorporate all your
review comments in the new vers
Hi Dilip,
On Fri, Mar 4, 2022 at 11:07 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 1:21 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 1:43 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > 2) GetNewRelFileNode() will not loop for checking the file existence
> > > and retry with other relfilenode.
> >
On Fri, Mar 4, 2022 at 12:37 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> In this version I have fixed both of these issues.
Here's a bit of review for these patches:
- The whole relnode vs. relfilenode thing is really confusing. I
realize that there is some precedent for calling the number that
pertains to the file
On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 1:27 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> > The only part I do not like in the patch is that before this patch we
> > could directly access the buftag->rnode. But since now we are not
> > having directly relfilenode as part of the buffertag and instead of
> > that we are keeping indivi
On Fri, Mar 4, 2022 at 12:37 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> In this version I have fixed both of these issues. Thanks Robert for
> suggesting the solution for both of these problems in our offlist
> discussion. Basically, for the first problem we can flush the xlog
> immediately because we are actually
On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 2:51 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> While working on this I realized that even if we make the relfilenode
> 56 bits we can not remove the loop inside GetNewRelFileNode() for
> checking the file existence. Because it is always possible that the
> file reaches to the disk even befo
On Mon, Feb 7, 2022 at 10:13 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 7, 2022 at 11:31 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > For RelFileNode also we need to use 2, 32-bit integers so that we do
> > not add extra alignment padding because there are a few more
> > structures that include RelFileNode e.g. xl_xact_
On Mon, Feb 7, 2022 at 11:31 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> For RelFileNode also we need to use 2, 32-bit integers so that we do
> not add extra alignment padding because there are a few more
> structures that include RelFileNode e.g. xl_xact_relfilenodes,
> RelFileNodeBackend, and many other structures.
On Mon, Feb 7, 2022 at 9:42 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 7, 2022 at 12:26 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > I have splitted the patch into multiple patches which can be
> > independently committable and easy to review. I have explained the
> > purpose and scope of each patch in the respective co
On Mon, Feb 7, 2022 at 12:26 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> I have splitted the patch into multiple patches which can be
> independently committable and easy to review. I have explained the
> purpose and scope of each patch in the respective commit messages.
Hmm. The parts of this I've looked at seem re
On Wed, Feb 2, 2022 at 6:57 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 9:37 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > I agree that we are using 8 bytes unsigned int multiple places in code
> > as uint64. But I don't see it as an exposed data type and not used as
> > part of any exposed function. But we
On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 9:37 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> I agree that we are using 8 bytes unsigned int multiple places in code
> as uint64. But I don't see it as an exposed data type and not used as
> part of any exposed function. But we will have to use the relfilenode
> in the exposed c function
On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 7:36 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 9:04 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 12:29 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > > the main one currently we do not have uint8 data
> > > type only int8 is there so I have used int8 for storing relfilenode +
> >
On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 9:04 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 12:29 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > the main one currently we do not have uint8 data
> > type only int8 is there so I have used int8 for storing relfilenode +
> > forknumber.
>
> I'm confused. We use int8 in tons of places,
On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 12:29 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> the main one currently we do not have uint8 data
> type only int8 is there so I have used int8 for storing relfilenode +
> forknumber.
I'm confused. We use int8 in tons of places, so I feel like it must exist.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.
On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 10:37 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 7:22 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 3:47 AM Thomas Munro wrote:
>> > Another problem is that relfilenodes are normally allocated with
>> > GetNewOidWithIndex(), and initially match a relation's OID
On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 7:22 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 3:47 AM Thomas Munro
> wrote:
> > Another problem is that relfilenodes are normally allocated with
> > GetNewOidWithIndex(), and initially match a relation's OID. We'd need
> > a new allocator, and they won't be able to
On 2022-01-06 08:52:01 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 3:47 AM Thomas Munro wrote:
> > Another problem is that relfilenodes are normally allocated with
> > GetNewOidWithIndex(), and initially match a relation's OID. We'd need
> > a new allocator, and they won't be able to match
On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 3:47 AM Thomas Munro wrote:
> Another problem is that relfilenodes are normally allocated with
> GetNewOidWithIndex(), and initially match a relation's OID. We'd need
> a new allocator, and they won't be able to match the OID in general
> (while we have 32 bit OIDs at least
On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 9:13 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 1:12 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > > I think this idea is worth more consideration. It seems like 2^56
> > > relfilenodes ought to be enough for anyone, recalling that you can
> > > only ever have 2^64 bytes of WAL. So if we d
On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 1:12 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> >
> > I think this idea is worth more consideration. It seems like 2^56
> > relfilenodes ought to be enough for anyone, recalling that you can
> > only ever have 2^64 bytes of WAL. So if we do this, we can eliminate a
> > bunch of code that is
On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 3:07 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 6:38 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > I guess there's a somewhat hacky way to get somewhere without actually
> > increasing the size. We could take 3 bytes from the fork number and use that
> > to get to a 7 byte relfilenode
On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 6:38 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> I guess there's a somewhat hacky way to get somewhere without actually
> increasing the size. We could take 3 bytes from the fork number and use that
> to get to a 7 byte relfilenode portion. 7 bytes are probably enough for
> everyone.
>
> It's
On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 4:21 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 11:32 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> > I managed to produce a case where live data is written to an unlinked
> > file and lost
In conclusion, there *is* something else that would break, so I'm
withdrawing this CF entry (#3030
On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 11:32 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> I managed to produce a case where live data is written to an unlinked
> file and lost
I guess this must have been broken since release 9.2 moved checkpoints
out of here[1]. The connection between checkpoints, tombstone files
and file descrip
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 4:07 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> Hmm, on closer inspection, isn't the lack of real interlocking with
> checkpoints a bit suspect already? What stops bgwriter from writing
> to the previous relfilenode generation's fd, if a relfilenode is
> recycled while BgBufferSync() is run
On Wed, Aug 4, 2021 at 3:22 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> It's not really clear to me what problem is at hand. The problems that
> the tombstone system created for the async I/O stuff weren't really
> explained properly, IMHO. And I don't think the current system is all
> that ugly. it's not the most be
On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 11:02 AM Thomas Munro wrote:
> This is a WIP with an open question to research: what could actually
> break if we did this?
I thought this part of bgwriter.c might be a candidate:
if (FirstCallSinceLastCheckpoint())
{
/*
* After any che
On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 6:38 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> What I proposed in the past was to have a new shared table that tracks
> relfilenodes. I still think that's a decent solution for just the problem at
> hand.
It's not really clear to me what problem is at hand. The problems that
the tombstone
Hi,
On 2021-08-02 16:03:31 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> The two most principled solutions to this problem that I can see are
> (1) remove wal_level=minimal and
I'm personally not opposed to this. It's not practically relevant and makes a
lot of stuff more complicated. We imo should rather focus on
On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 6:47 AM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> It would indeed be nice to have some other mechanism to prevent the
> issue with wal_level=minimal, the tombstone files feel hacky and
> complicated. Maybe a new shared memory hash table to track the
> relfilenodes of dropped tables.
Jus
On 05/03/2021 00:02, Thomas Munro wrote:
Hi,
I'm starting a new thread for this patch that originated as a
side-discussion in [1], to give it its own CF entry in the next cycle.
This is a WIP with an open question to research: what could actually
break if we did this?
I don't see a problem.
I
at/CA%2BhUKGLdemy2gBm80kz20GTe6hNVwoErE8KwcJk6-U56oStjtg%40mail.gmail.com
From 61a15ed286a1fd824b4e2b4b689cbe6688930e6e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Thomas Munro
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2021 16:09:51 +1300
Subject: [PATCH] Make relfile tombstone files conditional on WAL level.
Traditionally we have left behind an empty
35 matches
Mail list logo
