On 2019-Apr-05, Thomas Munro wrote:
> Ok, here is a patch that adds a one-typedef header and uses
> SegmentIndex to replace all cases of BlockNumber and int holding a
> segment number (where as an "index" or a "count").
Hmm, I now see (while doing the pg_checksum translation) that this patch
didn
On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 11:47 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> Pushed. Thanks for all the work on this!
I managed to break this today while testing with RELSEG_SIZE set to 1
block (= squillions of 8kb files). The problem is incorrect arguments
to _mdfd_getseg(), in code added recently by me. Without th
On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 10:53 AM Thomas Munro wrote:
> Ok, here is a patch that adds a one-typedef header and uses
> SegmentIndex to replace all cases of BlockNumber and int holding a
> segment number (where as an "index" or a "count").
(sorry, I meant "SegmentNumber", not "SegmentIndex")
--
Tho
On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 2:03 AM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2019-Apr-04, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > I don't think it's project policy to put a single typedef into its own
> > header like that, and I'm not sure where else to put it.
>
> shrug. Looks fine to me. I suppose if we don't have it anywhere,
On 2019-Apr-04, Thomas Munro wrote:
> I don't think it's project policy to put a single typedef into its own
> header like that, and I'm not sure where else to put it.
shrug. Looks fine to me. I suppose if we don't have it anywhere, it's
just because we haven't needed that particular trick yet.
On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 6:41 PM Shawn Debnath wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 05:39:14PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 5:36 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > > On 2019-04-03 21:19:45 -0700, Shawn Debnath wrote:
> > > > +typedef struct FileTag
> > > > +{
> > > > + int16
On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 5:36 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2019-04-03 21:19:45 -0700, Shawn Debnath wrote:
> > +typedef struct FileTag
> > +{
> > + int16 handler;/* SyncRequstHandler value,
> > saving space */
> > + int16 forknum;/* ForkNu
On 2019-04-03 21:19:45 -0700, Shawn Debnath wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 02:01:14PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 11:39 AM Thomas Munro wrote:
> > > ... Perhaps
> > > that is an argument for putting the sync handler number *inside* the
> > > FileTag, since we currently
On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 11:39 AM Thomas Munro wrote:
> ... Perhaps
> that is an argument for putting the sync handler number *inside* the
> FileTag, since we currently intend to do that with smgr IDs in
> BufferTag (stealing space from ForkNumber).
Here is a version like that. I like it better th
On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 10:44 AM Shawn Debnath wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 01:08:31AM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > As a sanity check on the programming interface this thing gives you, I
> > tried teaching the SLRUs to use the fsync queue. I finished up making
> > a few small improvements, b
On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 11:09 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> I'm going to do some more testing and tidying tomorrow (for example I
> think the segment.h header is silly and I'd like to remove that), and
> commit this.
As a sanity check on the programming interface this thing gives you, I
tried teaching
On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 5:48 AM Shawn Debnath wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 09:22:56AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 12:20 AM Thomas Munro
> > wrote:
> > > Here's a fixup patch. 0001 is the same as Shawn's v12 patch, and 0002
> > > has my proposed changes to switch to
On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 12:20 AM Thomas Munro wrote:
> I've been trying to decide if that is a problem. Maybe there is a
> performance angle, and I'm also wondering if it might increase the
> risk of missing a write-back error. Of course we'll find a proper
> solution to that problem (perhaps fd
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 2:27 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> [...] Aside from some refactoring which I
> think looks good anyway and prepares for future patches, the main
> effect of this patch is to force the checkpointer to open and close
> the files every time which seems OK to me.
I've been trying t
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 2:00 PM Shawn Debnath wrote:
> So ... wondering if there are any other left over items for this patch
> or is it good to go? I imagine there's at least a couple of us who would
> love to see this get in for PG12.
I rebased my WIP undo stuff[1] (targeting 13) on top of this
On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 6:16 AM Shawn Debnath wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 05, 2019 at 11:53:16AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Thomas Munro writes:
> > > Why do we need to include fmgr.h in md.h?
> >
> > More generally, any massive increase in an include file's inclusions
> > is probably a sign that you nee
Thomas Munro writes:
> +#include "fmgr.h"
> +#include "storage/block.h"
> +#include "storage/relfilenode.h"
> +#include "storage/smgr.h"
> +#include "storage/sync.h"
> Why do we need to include fmgr.h in md.h?
More generally, any massive increase in an include file's inclusions
is probably a sig
On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 5:07 AM Shawn Debnath wrote:
> Confirmed. Patch shows 8900 ms vs 192 ms on master for the insert test.
> Interesting! It's reproducible so should be able to figure out what's
> going on. The only thing we do in ForwardSyncRequest() is split up the 8
> bits into 2x4 bits and
On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 2:25 PM Shawn Debnath wrote:
> [v11 patch]
Thanks. Hmm, something is wrong here because make check is
dramatically slower -- for example the "insert" test runs in ~8-13
seconds instead of the usual ~0.2 seconds according to Travis,
AppVeyor and my local FreeBSD system (not
On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 3:35 PM Shawn Debnath wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 01, 2019 at 03:03:19PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 2:36 PM Shawn Debnath wrote:
> > > I disagree, at least with combining and retaining enums. Encoding all
> > > the possible request types with the current,
On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 9:35 AM Shawn Debnath wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 01, 2019 at 03:03:19PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 2:36 PM Shawn Debnath wrote:
> > > I disagree, at least with combining and retaining enums. Encoding all
> > > the possible request types with the current,
On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 2:36 PM Shawn Debnath wrote:
> I disagree, at least with combining and retaining enums. Encoding all
> the possible request types with the current, planned and future SMGRs
> would cause a sheer explosion in the number of enum values.
How big of an explosion would it be?
On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 8:36 AM Shawn Debnath wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 01, 2019 at 01:15:21PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > > >
> > > > +typedef enum syncrequestowner
> > > > +{
> > > > + SYNC_MD = 0 /* md smgr */
> > > > +} syncrequestowner;
> > > >
> > > > I have a feeling that Andr
On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 12:43 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> Obviously it's nicer looking this way, but OTOH, that means we have to
> send more data over the queue, because we can't easily combine the
> request + "owner". I don't have too strong feelings about it though.
Yeah, I would lean toward combi
Hi,
On 2019-03-01 23:17:27 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> @@ -8616,7 +8617,7 @@ CreateCheckPoint(int flags)
> * the REDO pointer. Note that smgr must not do anything that'd have
> to
> * be undone if we decide no checkpoint is needed.
> */
> - smgrpreckpt();
> +
On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:43 AM Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:27 AM Shawn Debnath wrote:
> > We had a quick offline discussion to get on the same page and we agreed
> > to move forward with Andres' approach above. Attached is patch v10.
> > Here's the overview of the patch:
>
On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:27 AM Shawn Debnath wrote:
> We had a quick offline discussion to get on the same page and we agreed
> to move forward with Andres' approach above. Attached is patch v10.
> Here's the overview of the patch:
Thanks. I will review, and try to rebase my undo patches on to
On 2019-02-22 15:45:50 -0800, Shawn Debnath wrote:
> > > Well even if you do it with individual segment cancel messages for
> > > relations, you still need a way to deal with whole-database drops
> > > (generating the cancels for every segment in every relation in the
> > > database would be nuts),
Hi,
On 2019-02-23 11:59:04 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 11:48 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> > > Yeah I suggested dynamic registration to avoid the problem that eg
> > > src/backend/storage/sync.c otherwise needs to forward declare
> > > md_tagtopath(), undofile_tagtopath(), sl
On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 11:48 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> > Yeah I suggested dynamic registration to avoid the problem that eg
> > src/backend/storage/sync.c otherwise needs to forward declare
> > md_tagtopath(), undofile_tagtopath(), slru_tagtopath(), ..., or maybe
> > #include etc, which seemed l
Hi,
On 2019-02-23 11:42:49 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 11:15 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2019-02-22 10:18:57 -0800, Shawn Debnath wrote:
> > > I think using callbacks is the better path forward than having md or
> > > other components issue an invalidate request for ea
On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 11:15 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2019-02-22 10:18:57 -0800, Shawn Debnath wrote:
> > I think using callbacks is the better path forward than having md or
> > other components issue an invalidate request for each and every segment
> > which can get quite heavy handed for l
Hi,
On 2019-02-22 10:18:57 -0800, Shawn Debnath wrote:
> I think using callbacks is the better path forward than having md or
> other components issue an invalidate request for each and every segment
> which can get quite heavy handed for large databases.
I'm not sure I buy this. Unlinking file
On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 12:50 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> Thanks for the update!
+1, thanks Shawn.
It's interesting that you measure performance improvements that IIUC
can come only from dropping the bitmapset stuff (or I guess bugs). I
don't understand the mechanism for that improvement yet.
Th
Hi,
Thanks for the update!
On 2019-02-20 15:27:40 -0800, Shawn Debnath wrote:
> As promised, here's a patch that addresses the points discussed by
> Andres and Thomas at FOSDEM. As a result of how we want checkpointer to
> track what files to fsync, the pending ops table now integrates the
> f
Hi,
On 2019-02-13 18:40:05 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> Thanks! And sorry for not replying sooner -- I got distracted by
> FOSDEM (and the associated 20 thousand miles of travel). On that trip
> I had a chance to discuss this patch with Andres Freund in person, and
> he opined that it might be b
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 3:58 PM Shawn Debnath wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 09:59:38PM -0800, Shawn Debnath wrote:
> > I wonder if it might be better to introduce two different functions
> > catering to the two different use cases for forcing an immediate sync:
> >
> > - sync a relation
> >
On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 09:59:38PM -0800, Shawn Debnath wrote:
> I (finally) got a chance to go through these patches and they look
> great. Thank you for working on this!
This review is very recent, so I have moved the patch to next CF.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Hi,
On 2019-01-22 14:53:11 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 2:38 PM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> > close() doesn't trigger an fsync() in general
>
> What sort of a performance hit was observed when testing the addition
> of fsync or fdatasync before any PostgreSQL close() of a
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 2:38 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> close() doesn't trigger an fsync() in general
What sort of a performance hit was observed when testing the addition
of fsync or fdatasync before any PostgreSQL close() of a writable
file, or have we not yet checked that?
> https://postgr.es
Hi,
On 2019-01-22 14:29:23 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 12:17 PM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, unless something has changed recently, that patch is
> > *not* sufficient to really solve the issue - we don't guarantee that
> > there's always an fd preventing t
On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 9:29 AM Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Can you point to a post explaining how the inode can be evicted?
Hi Kevin,
To recap the (admittedly confusing) list of problems with Linux fsync
or our usage:
1. On Linux < 4.13, the error state can be cleared in various
surprising ways s
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 12:17 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> Unfortunately, unless something has changed recently, that patch is
> *not* sufficient to really solve the issue - we don't guarantee that
> there's always an fd preventing the necessary information from being
> evicted from memory:
But we
Hi,,
On 2019-01-22 08:27:48 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> With the help of VMware's Dirk Hohndel (VMware's Chief Open Source
> Officer, a VP position near the top of the organization, and a
> personal friend of Linus), I have been fortunate enough to make
> contact directly with Linus Torvalds to
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 8:27 AM Kevin Grittner wrote:
> With the help of VMware's Dirk Hohndel (VMware's Chief Open Source
> Officer, a VP position near the top of the organization, and a
> personal friend of Linus), I have been fortunate enough to make
> contact directly with Linus Torvalds to d
With the help of VMware's Dirk Hohndel (VMware's Chief Open Source
Officer, a VP position near the top of the organization, and a
personal friend of Linus), I have been fortunate enough to make
contact directly with Linus Torvalds to discuss this issue. In emails
to me he has told me that this pat
On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 11:40 AM Thomas Munro
wrote:
> For the 0001 patch, I'll probably want to reconsider the naming a bit
> ("simple -> "specialized", "generic", ...?), refine (ability to turn
> off the small vector optimisation? optional MemoryContext? ability
> to extend without copying or z
On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 10:41 AM Thomas Munro
wrote:
> So, I have split this work into multiple patches. 0001 is a draft
> version of some new infrastructure I'd like to propose, 0002 is the
> thing originally described by the first two paragraphs in the first
> email in this thread, and the rest
On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 1:46 AM Dmitry Dolgov <9erthali...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 11:47 PM Thomas Munro
> > wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 5:45 PM Thomas Munro
> > > wrote:
> > > I do have a new plan though...
> >
> > Ugh. The plan in my previous email doesn't work,
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 11:47 PM Thomas Munro
> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 5:45 PM Thomas Munro
> wrote:
> > I do have a new plan though...
>
> Ugh. The plan in my previous email doesn't work, I was confused about
> the timing of the buffer header update. Back to the drawing board.
On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 5:45 PM Thomas Munro
wrote:
> I do have a new plan though...
Ugh. The plan in my previous email doesn't work, I was confused about
the timing of the buffer header update. Back to the drawing board.
--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 5:38 PM Thomas Munro
wrote:
> Or to put it another way, you can't be given a lower sequence number
> than another process that has already written, because that other
> process must have been given a sequence number before it wrote.
OK, that makes sense.
--
Robert Haas
E
On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 4:05 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 4:49 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2018-11-14 16:36:49 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > > But how do you make reading that counter atomic with the open() itself?
> >
> > I don't see why it has to be. As long as the "fd gen
On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 5:09 AM Dmitry Dolgov <9erthali...@gmail.com> wrote:
> While testing this patch with frequent checkpoints I've stumbled upon an
> interesting error, that happened already after I finished one test:
>
> TRAP: FailedAssertion("!(rc > 0)", File: "checkpointer.c", Line: 574)
Th
On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 4:49 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-11-14 16:36:49 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > But how do you make reading that counter atomic with the open() itself?
>
> I don't see why it has to be. As long as the "fd generation" assignment
> happens before fsync (and writes seconda
On 2018-11-14 16:36:49 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 6:44 PM Thomas Munro
> wrote:
> > I'm not sure if it matters whether we send the fd before or after the
> > write, but we still need some kind of global ordering of fds that can
> > order a given fd with respect to writes i
On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 6:44 PM Thomas Munro
wrote:
> > That sounds a little like you are proposing to go back to the way
> > things were before 806a2aee3791244bf0f916729bfdb5489936e068 (and,
> > belatedly, bf405ba8e460051e715d0a91442b579e590328ce) although I guess
> > the division of labor wouldn
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 at 00:44, Thomas Munro
> wrote:
>
> Here is a rebased version of the patch, post pread()/pwrite(). I have
> also rewritten the commit message to try to explain the rationale
> concisely, instead of requiring the reader to consult multiple
> discussions that jump between len
(Replies to a couple of different messages below)
On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 6:04 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 9:59 PM Thomas Munro
> wrote:
> > There is one major problem with this patch
>
> If there's only one, you're doing great! Although admittedly this
> seems like a big on
On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 1:07 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-11-13 12:04:23 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > I still feel like this whole pass-the-fds-to-the-checkpointer thing is
> > a bit of a fool's errand, though. I mean, there's no guarantee that
> > the first FD that gets passed to the check
Hi,
On 2018-11-13 12:04:23 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> I still feel like this whole pass-the-fds-to-the-checkpointer thing is
> a bit of a fool's errand, though. I mean, there's no guarantee that
> the first FD that gets passed to the checkpointer is the first one
> opened, or even the first one
Hi,
On 2018-11-12 15:58:41 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> There is one major problem with this patch: BufferSync(), run in the
> checkpointer, can deadlock against a backend that holds a buffer lock
> and is blocked in SendFsyncRequest(). To break this deadlock, we need
> way out of it on either t
On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 9:59 PM Thomas Munro
wrote:
> There is one major problem with this patch
If there's only one, you're doing great! Although admittedly this
seems like a big one...
> 1. Go back to the current pressure-valve strategy: make the sending
> side perform the fsync(), if it can
63 matches
Mail list logo
