On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 7:46 PM John Naylor
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 7:28 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > > The patch looks good to me. But I can't come up with a stable test for
> > > this. It seems to be hard without stopping and resuming parallel
> > > vacuum workers. Do you have any g
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 7:28 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> > The patch looks good to me. But I can't come up with a stable test for
> > this. It seems to be hard without stopping and resuming parallel
> > vacuum workers. Do you have any good idea?
> >
>
> No, let's wait for a day or so to see if anybo
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 1:06 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 8:45 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> The patch looks good to me. But I can't come up with a stable test for
> this. It seems to be hard without stopping and resuming parallel
> vacuum workers. Do you have any good idea?
On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 8:45 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 12:38 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > I've updated the patch so that ProcArrayInstallRestoredXmin() sets
> > both xmin and statusFlags only when the source proc is still running
> > and xmin doesn't go backwards.
On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 12:38 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> I've updated the patch so that ProcArrayInstallRestoredXmin() sets
> both xmin and statusFlags only when the source proc is still running
> and xmin doesn't go backwards. IOW it doesn't happen that only one of
> them is set by this functi
On Sat, Nov 13, 2021 at 2:10 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 6:44 PM Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> >
> > On 2021-Nov-11, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 12:53 PM Amit Kapila
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 9:11 AM Andres Freund
> >
On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 6:44 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2021-Nov-11, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 12:53 PM Amit Kapila
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 9:11 AM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> > > > This seems like an unnecessary optimization.
> > > > ProcArr
On 2021-Nov-11, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 12:53 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 9:11 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> > > This seems like an unnecessary optimization.
> > > ProcArrayInstallRestoredXmin()
> > > only happens in the context of much more expen
On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 1:37 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 3:07 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
>
> > I think the disadvantage I see by not
> > doing in ProcArrayInstallRestoedXmin is that we need to take procarray
> > lock twice (once in exclusive mode and then in shared mode)
On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 3:07 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 10:40 AM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 12:53 PM Amit Kapila
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 9:11 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > On 2021-11-11 1
On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 10:40 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 12:53 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 9:11 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On 2021-11-11 12:22:42 +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > > > > 2.
> > > > > LWLockAcquire(Pro
On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 12:53 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 9:11 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2021-11-11 12:22:42 +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > > > 2.
> > > > LWLockAcquire(ProcArrayLock, LW_SHARED);
> > > >
> > > > + flags = proc->statusFlags;
> > > >
On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 9:11 AM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2021-11-11 12:22:42 +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > > 2.
> > > LWLockAcquire(ProcArrayLock, LW_SHARED);
> > >
> > > + flags = proc->statusFlags;
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * If the source xact has any statusFlags, we re-grab P
Hi,
On 2021-11-11 12:22:42 +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > 2.
> > LWLockAcquire(ProcArrayLock, LW_SHARED);
> >
> > + flags = proc->statusFlags;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * If the source xact has any statusFlags, we re-grab ProcArrayLock
> > + * on exclusive mode so we can copy it to MyProc->statusF
On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 6:14 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 11:08 AM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 9:27 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> >
> > I agree to copy statusFlags in ProcArrayInstallRestoredXmin(). I've
> > updated the patch accordingly.
> >
On Wed, 10 Nov 2021 at 11:51, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 8:16 PM Matthias van de Meent
> wrote:
>
> AFAICU, in the thread referred by you, it seems that the main reported
> issue will be resolved by this patch but there is a discussion about
> xmin moving backward which seems t
On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 8:16 PM Matthias van de Meent
wrote:
>
> On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 at 07:38, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 9:27 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 3:07 AM Alvaro Herrera
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 2021-Oct-19, Alvar
On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 11:08 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 9:27 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> I agree to copy statusFlags in ProcArrayInstallRestoredXmin(). I've
> updated the patch accordingly.
>
1.
@@ -2663,7 +2677,16 @@ ProcArrayInstallRestoredXmin(TransactionId
xmin,
On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 at 07:38, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 9:27 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 3:07 AM Alvaro Herrera
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2021-Oct-19, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > >
> >
> > Thank you for the comment.
> >
> > > > Hmm, I think t
On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 9:27 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 3:07 AM Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> >
> > On 2021-Oct-19, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >
>
> Thank you for the comment.
>
> > > Hmm, I think this should happen before the transaction snapshot is
> > > established in the
On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 3:07 AM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2021-Oct-19, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
Thank you for the comment.
> > Hmm, I think this should happen before the transaction snapshot is
> > established in the worker; perhaps immediately after calling
> > StartParallelWorkerTransaction(
On 2021-Oct-19, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Hmm, I think this should happen before the transaction snapshot is
> established in the worker; perhaps immediately after calling
> StartParallelWorkerTransaction(), or anyway not after
> SetTransactionSnapshot. In fact, since SetTransactionSnapshot receive
Hmm, I think this should happen before the transaction snapshot is
established in the worker; perhaps immediately after calling
StartParallelWorkerTransaction(), or anyway not after
SetTransactionSnapshot. In fact, since SetTransactionSnapshot receives
a 'sourceproc' argument, why not do it exactl
On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 9:51 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 09:23:32AM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 9, 2021 at 12:13 AM Alvaro Herrera
> > wrote:
> >> * PROC_VACUUM_FOR_WRAPAROUND. Should be innocuous I think, since the
> >> "parent" process already has t
On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 3:01 PM Greg Nancarrow wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 6:11 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > To fix it, I thought that we change the create index code and the
> > vacuum code so that the individual parallel worker sets its status
> > flags according to the leader’s one.
On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 6:11 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> To fix it, I thought that we change the create index code and the
> vacuum code so that the individual parallel worker sets its status
> flags according to the leader’s one. But ISTM it’d be better to copy
> the leader’s status flags to wor
On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 09:23:32AM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 9, 2021 at 12:13 AM Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>> * PROC_VACUUM_FOR_WRAPAROUND. Should be innocuous I think, since the
>> "parent" process already has this flag and thus shouldn't be cancelled.
>
> Currently, we don't s
On Sat, Oct 9, 2021 at 12:13 AM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2021-Oct-06, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > A customer reported that during parallel index vacuum, the oldest xmin
> > doesn't advance. Normally, the calculation of oldest xmin
> > (ComputeXidHorizons()) ignores xmin/xid of
On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 8:13 AM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2021-Oct-06, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > A customer reported that during parallel index vacuum, the oldest xmin
> > doesn't advance. Normally, the calculation of oldest xmin
> > (ComputeXidHorizons()) ignores xmin/xid of processes having
> >
On 2021-Oct-06, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> A customer reported that during parallel index vacuum, the oldest xmin
> doesn't advance. Normally, the calculation of oldest xmin
> (ComputeXidHorizons()) ignores xmin/xid of processes having
> PROC_IN_VACUUM flag in MyProc->statusFlags. But s
On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 12:41 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> A customer reported that during parallel index vacuum, the oldest xmin
> doesn't advance. Normally, the calculation of oldest xmin
> (ComputeXidHorizons()) ignores xmin/xid of processes having
> PROC_IN_VACUUM flag in MyProc->s
On 10/6/21, 12:13 AM, "Masahiko Sawada" wrote:
> A customer reported that during parallel index vacuum, the oldest xmin
> doesn't advance. Normally, the calculation of oldest xmin
> (ComputeXidHorizons()) ignores xmin/xid of processes having
> PROC_IN_VACUUM flag in MyProc->statusFlags. But since
32 matches
Mail list logo
