On 2018-Dec-28, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > Alvaro Herrera writes:
> >> I looked at
> >> https://github.com/postgrespro/pg_wait_sampling/blob/master/pg_wait_sampling.c
> >> https://github.com/citusdata/citus/search?q=pgproc&unscoped_q=pgproc
> >> and skimmed a few others can't find any instan
I wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
>> I looked at
>> https://github.com/postgrespro/pg_wait_sampling/blob/master/pg_wait_sampling.c
>> https://github.com/citusdata/citus/search?q=pgproc&unscoped_q=pgproc
>> and skimmed a few others can't find any instance where the full struct
>> is used, as oppos
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> On 2018-Dec-28, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> On 2018-Dec-28, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> There are many exotic extensions which could be using sizeof(PGPROC)
>>> as that's a popular structure,
>> Can you show one instance of this?
> I looked at
> https://github.com/postgresp
On 2018-Dec-28, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2018-Dec-28, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 12:05:34AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > The server code allocates arrays, but that's fine because that code is
> > > recompiled. Extensions only pass pointers around -- they don't c
On 2018-Dec-28, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 12:05:34AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > The server code allocates arrays, but that's fine because that code is
> > recompiled. Extensions only pass pointers around -- they don't create
> > any additional arrays.
>
> There are m
On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 12:05:34AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> The server code allocates arrays, but that's fine because that code is
> recompiled. Extensions only pass pointers around -- they don't create
> any additional arrays.
There are many exotic extensions which could be using sizeof(PG
On 2018-Dec-28, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 04:30:21PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > We allow structs to receive new members at the end of the struct, since
> > this doesn't affect the offset of existing members; thus code already
> > compiled with the previous struct defin
On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 04:30:21PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> We allow structs to receive new members at the end of the struct, since
> this doesn't affect the offset of existing members; thus code already
> compiled with the previous struct definition does not break. AFAICS
> there is no dang
On 2018-Dec-27, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 08:51:56PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Having been victim of ABI incompatibility myself, I loathe giving too
> > much priority to other issues that can be resolved in other ways, so I
> > don't necessarily support your view on b
On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 08:51:56PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Having been victim of ABI incompatibility myself, I loathe giving too
> much priority to other issues that can be resolved in other ways, so I
> don't necessarily support your view on bugs.
> That said, I think in this case it should
From: Alvaro Herrera [mailto:alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com]
> Having been victim of ABI incompatibility myself, I loathe giving too much
> priority to other issues that can be resolved in other ways, so I don't
> necessarily support your view on bugs.
> That said, I think in this case it shouldn't be a
On 2018-Dec-26, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> From: Alvaro Herrera [mailto:alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com]
> > The more aggressive action is to backpatch 943576bddcb5 ("Make autovacuum
> > more aggressive to remove orphaned temp tables") which is currently only
> > in pg11. We would put the new PGPROC m
From: Alvaro Herrera [mailto:alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com]
> The more aggressive action is to backpatch 943576bddcb5 ("Make autovacuum
> more aggressive to remove orphaned temp tables") which is currently only
> in pg11. We would put the new PGPROC member at the end of the struct, to
> avoid ABI incom
On 2018-Dec-16, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 09:51:31AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Alvaro Herrera writes:
> >> Oh, we already have it! Sorry, I overlooked it. With that, it seems
> >> the patch is fairly simple ... I wonder about the locking implications
> >> in autovacuum,
On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 09:51:31AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
>> Oh, we already have it! Sorry, I overlooked it. With that, it seems
>> the patch is fairly simple ... I wonder about the locking implications
>> in autovacuum, though -- the value is set in backends without acq
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> On 2018-Dec-15, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Isn't that what tempNamespaceId can be used for in PGPROC now? The flag
>> would be set only when a backend creates a new temporary schema so as it
>> can be tracked as the owner of the schema.
> Oh, we already have it! Sorry, I
On 2018-Dec-15, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 11:06:32PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > I did propose in my OP the idea of a PGPROC boolean flag that indicates
> > whether the temp namespace has been set up. If not, have autovac remove
> > those tables. I like this option be
On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 11:06:32PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I did propose in my OP the idea of a PGPROC boolean flag that indicates
> whether the temp namespace has been set up. If not, have autovac remove
> those tables. I like this option better, but I fear it adds more
> ProcArrayLock co
On 2018-Dec-14, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 6:35 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> > Hm. It *could*, if we wanted it to run some transactions after
> > finishing recovery.
>
> It'd have to launch a separate process per database. That would be
> useful infrastructure for other things, too,
On 2018-Dec-14, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 12:27 PM Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> > Maybe it'd be better to change temp table removal to always drop
> > max_locks_per_transaction objects at a time (ie. commit/start a new
> > transaction every so many objects).
>
> We're basically
On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 6:35 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Hm. It *could*, if we wanted it to run some transactions after
> finishing recovery.
It'd have to launch a separate process per database. That would be
useful infrastructure for other things, too, like automatic catalog
upgrades in minor release
Hi,
On 2018-12-14 13:35:50 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Hm. It *could*, if we wanted it to run some transactions after
> finishing recovery.
How, we don't have infrastructure for changing databases yet?
> But I guess I wonder why bother; if the disk
> space is gone then there's not that much reaso
Robert Haas writes:
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 12:57 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>> I seem to recall discussions about having crash recovery go around
>> and clean out temp tables. That seems like a better plan than
>> penalizing every session start with this.
> Well, crash recovery already removes the f
On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 12:57 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> I seem to recall discussions about having crash recovery go around
> and clean out temp tables. That seems like a better plan than
> penalizing every session start with this.
Well, crash recovery already removes the files, but it can't really
re
Robert Haas writes:
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 11:29 AM Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>> I think the best way to fix this is to call RemoveTempRelations()
>> unconditionally at session start (without doing the rest of the temp
>> table setup, just the removal.)
> That would certainly simplify things.
On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 12:27 PM Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Hmm, I think in the case covered by your commit, that is a session that
> crashes with a few thousands of temp tables, this new patch might cause
> a failure to open a new session altogether.
Oh, good point. Or if the catalog is corrupted.
On 2018-Dec-14, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 11:29 AM Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> > I think the best way to fix this is to call RemoveTempRelations()
> > unconditionally at session start (without doing the rest of the temp
> > table setup, just the removal.)
>
> That would certainl
On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 11:29 AM Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> I think the best way to fix this is to call RemoveTempRelations()
> unconditionally at session start (without doing the rest of the temp
> table setup, just the removal.)
That would certainly simplify things. I think I thought about that a
28 matches
Mail list logo
