On 06.10.2020 08:32, Thomas Munro wrote:
On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 2:00 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 03:46:14PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
Thomas, with respect to your part of this patch set, I wonder if we
can make the functions that you're using to write tests safe enough
On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 2:00 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 03:46:14PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > Committed.
>
> Cool, thanks.
+1
> > Thomas, with respect to your part of this patch set, I wonder if we
> > can make the functions that you're using to write tests safe enoug
On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 03:46:14PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> Committed.
Cool, thanks.
> Thomas, with respect to your part of this patch set, I wonder if we
> can make the functions that you're using to write tests safe enough
> that we could add them to contrib/old_snapshot and let users run th
On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 9:16 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> LGTM.
Committed.
Thomas, with respect to your part of this patch set, I wonder if we
can make the functions that you're using to write tests safe enough
that we could add them to contrib/old_snapshot and let users run them
if they want. As yo
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: tested, passed
Implements feature: not tested
Spec compliant: not tested
Documentation:not tested
Patch looks good to me.
On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 12:19 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 10:40 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> > Yeah, I plan to push forward with 0001 through 0003 soon, but 0001
> > needs to be revised with a PGDLLIMPORT marking, I think, and 0002
> > needs documentation.
>
> So here's an updated
On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 10:40 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> Yeah, I plan to push forward with 0001 through 0003 soon, but 0001
> needs to be revised with a PGDLLIMPORT marking, I think, and 0002
> needs documentation.
So here's an updated version of those three, with proposed commit
messages, a PGDLLIM
On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 1:47 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 10:09:15AM +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > And ... now that this has a commitfest entry, cfbot told me about a
> > small problem in a makefile. Third time lucky?
>
> Still lucky since then, and the CF bot does not com
On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 10:09:15AM +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> And ... now that this has a commitfest entry, cfbot told me about a
> small problem in a makefile. Third time lucky?
Still lucky since then, and the CF bot does not complain. So... The
meat of the patch is in 0003 which is fixing a
On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 1:04 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 12:52 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> > Here's a rebase.
>
> And another, since I was too slow and v6 is already in conflict...
> sorry for the high frequency patches.
And ... now that this has a commitfest entry, cfbot told
On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 12:52 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> Here's a rebase.
And another, since I was too slow and v6 is already in conflict...
sorry for the high frequency patches.
From 1ced7b8c881676f21623c048f5e9e012ca8416ec Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Robert Haas
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2020 09:37:3
On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 5:39 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> - if (ts == update_ts)
> + if (ts >= update_ts)
Hi Dilip, I didn't follow this bit -- could you explain?
Here's a rebase. In the 0004 patch I chose to leave behind some
unnecessary braces to avoid r
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 4:52 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 3:44 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 2:05 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> > > As before, these two apply on top of Robert's patches (or at least his
> > > 0001 and 0002).
> >
> > While trying to figure
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 3:44 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 2:05 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> > As before, these two apply on top of Robert's patches (or at least his
> > 0001 and 0002).
>
> While trying to figure out if Robert's 0003 patch was correct, I added
> yet another patch
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 2:05 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> As before, these two apply on top of Robert's patches (or at least his
> 0001 and 0002).
While trying to figure out if Robert's 0003 patch was correct, I added
yet another patch to this stack to test it. 0006 does basic xid map
maintenance th
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 11:31 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 12:10 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > I have started reviewing these patches. I think, the fixes looks right to
> > me.
> >
> > + LWLockAcquire(OldSnapshotTimeMapLock, LW_SHARED);
> > + mapping->head_offset = oldSnapshotC
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 8:02 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 12:29 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> > I mean I want to verify that VACUUM or heap prune actually removed a
> > tuple that was visible to an old snapshot. An idea I just had: maybe
> > sto_using_select.spec should check the v
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 12:10 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> I have started reviewing these patches. I think, the fixes looks right to me.
>
> + LWLockAcquire(OldSnapshotTimeMapLock, LW_SHARED);
> + mapping->head_offset = oldSnapshotControl->head_offset;
> + mapping->head_timestamp = oldSnapshotControl-
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 12:29 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 6:35 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 11:24 AM Thomas Munro
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 9:27 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 11:47 AM Thomas Munro
> > >
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 6:35 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 11:24 AM Thomas Munro wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 9:27 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > > On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 11:47 AM Thomas Munro
> > > wrote:
> > Is this an improvement? I realise that there is still nothi
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 11:24 AM Thomas Munro wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 9:27 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 11:47 AM Thomas Munro
> > wrote:
> > > I think I found another bug in MaintainOldSnapshotTimeMapping(): if
> > > you make time jump by more than old_snapshot_t
On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 9:27 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 11:47 AM Thomas Munro wrote:
> > I think I found another bug in MaintainOldSnapshotTimeMapping(): if
> > you make time jump by more than old_snapshot_threshold in one go, then
> > the map gets cleared and then no early p
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 10:12 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm starting a new thread for this, because the recent discussion of
> problems with old_snapshot_threshold[1] touched on a lot of separate
> issues, and I think it will be too confusing if we discuss all of them
> on one thread. Atta
Hi,
On 2020-04-17 14:12:44 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> What about a contrib function that lets you clobber
> oldSnapshotControl->current_timestamp? It looks like all times in
> this system come ultimately from GetSnapshotCurrentTimestamp(), which
> uses that variable to make sure that time never
On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 11:47 AM Thomas Munro wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 2:12 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> > What about a contrib function that lets you clobber
> > oldSnapshotControl->current_timestamp? It looks like all times in
> > this system come ultimately from GetSnapshotCurrentTimest
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 2:12 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> What about a contrib function that lets you clobber
> oldSnapshotControl->current_timestamp? It looks like all times in
> this system come ultimately from GetSnapshotCurrentTimestamp(), which
> uses that variable to make sure that time never g
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 5:46 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2020-04-16 13:34:39 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 1:14 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > > I still think we need a way to test this without waiting for hours to
> > > hit various edge cases. You argued against a fixed bin
Hi,
On 2020-04-16 13:34:39 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 1:14 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > I still think we need a way to test this without waiting for hours to
> > hit various edge cases. You argued against a fixed binning of
> > old_snapshot_threshold/100 arguing its too co
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 1:14 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> I still think we need a way to test this without waiting for hours to
> hit various edge cases. You argued against a fixed binning of
> old_snapshot_threshold/100 arguing its too coarse. How about a 1000 or
> so? For 60 days, the current max f
Hi,
On 2020-04-16 12:41:55 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> I'm starting a new thread for this, because the recent discussion of
> problems with old_snapshot_threshold[1] touched on a lot of separate
> issues, and I think it will be too confusing if we discuss all of them
> on one thread. Attached are
30 matches
Mail list logo
