no
restart then it would be cheap to check in the hash table but I don't
think it is guaranteed.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 9:56 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 12:32 PM Peter Smith wrote:
> >
>
> 5. You need to write/sync the spool file at prepare time because after
> restart between prepare and commit prepared the changes can be lost
> and won'
On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 1:53 AM Paul Martinez wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 5:31 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > For docs only patch, I have few suggestions:
> > 1. On page [1], it is not very clear that we are suggesting to set
> > max_replication_slots for orig
mns in pg_replication_slots view.
>
I have recommended above to change this name to initial_consistency_at
because there are times when we don't export snapshot and we still set
this like when creating slots with CRS_NOEXPORT_SNAPSHOT or when
creating via SQL APIs. I am not sure why Ajin neither changed the
name nor responded to that comment. What is your opinion?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 7:31 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 9:58 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > 6.
> > + * XXX - Is there a potential timing problem here - e.g. if signal arrives
> > + * while executing this then maybe we will set table_states_valid without
that LSN there won't be any WAL
record or maybe WAL would be overwritten. I think this is primarily
for our internal use so let's not expose it. I intend to remove it
from the patch unless you have some reason for exposing this to the
user.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
_consistent_point.
3. Ran pgindent, minor changes in comments, and modified the commit message.
Let me know what you think about these changes.
Next, I'll review your second patch which allows the 2PC option to be
enabled only at slot creation time.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
From b4d4504b644
On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 2:47 AM Paul Martinez wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 5:22 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/logical-replication-config.html
> >
>
> Ah, yep. I added a clause to the end of the sentenc
On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 11:38 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 4:13 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 7:47 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
> >
> > > I've updated snapshot_was_exported_at_ member to pg_replication_slots as
&g
On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 12:00 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 9:33 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> >
> > On 2021-02-23 09:24:18 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > Okay, so is it sufficient to add comments in code, or do we want to
> > > add something
On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 8:29 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> We forgot to update the logical replication configuration settings
> page in commit ce0fdbfe97. After commit ce0fdbfe97, table
> synchronization workers also started using replication origins to
> track the progress and the
On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 7:23 AM Ajin Cherian wrote:
>
Pushed, the first patch in the series.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
t you made similar change in CreateInitDecodingContext when I
already suggested the same in my previous email? If we don't make that
change then during slot initialization two_phase will always be true
even though user passed in as false. It looks inconsistent and even
though there is no direct problem due to that but it could be cause of
possible problem in future.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 4:28 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 9:56 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 12:32 PM Peter Smith wrote:
> > >
> >
> > 5. You need to write/sync the spool file at prepare time because after
On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 2:35 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 2:47 AM Paul Martinez wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 5:22 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/logical-replication-config.html
> >
in the code. Apart from that ran pgindent. The patch
looks good to me now. Let me know what do you think?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
v9-0001-Add-option-to-enable-two_phase-commits-via-pg_cre.patch
Description: Binary data
On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 10:38 AM Ajin Cherian wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 3:03 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> One minor comment:
> +
> +
> + True if the slot is enabled for decoding prepared transactions.
> Always
> +
-
+ Insert on testdef
+ -> Seq Scan on test_data
+(2 rows)
+
+insert into testdef(a,c,d) select a,a*4,a*8 from test_data;
+select * from testdef order by a;
+ a | b | c | d
++---++
+ 1 | 5 | 4 | 8
+ 2 | 5 | 8 | 16
+ 3 | 5 | 12 | 24
+ 4 | 5 | 16 | 32
+ 5 | 5 | 20 | 40
+ 6 | 5 | 24 | 48
+ 7 | 5 | 28 | 56
+ 8 | 5 | 32 | 64
+ 9 | 5 | 36 | 72
+ 10 | 5 | 40 | 80
+(10 rows)
+
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
in, it is good if we get this in as well.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
v2-0001-Track-replication-origin-progress-for-rollbacks.patch
Description: Binary data
On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 12:43 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 9:33 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 8:20 AM vignesh C wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I have a minor comment regarding the below:
> >
On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 5:32 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 2:35 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 2:47 AM Paul Martinez wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 5:22 AM Amit Kapila
> > > wrote:
> >
On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 12:52 PM Greg Nancarrow wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 11:19 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 9:08 AM Greg Nancarrow wrote:
>
> > 2.
> > /*
> > + * Prepare for entering parallel mode by assigning a
> >
ARE messages. Those should be handled by
there corresponding apply_handle_* functions. Before processing the
messages remote_final_lsn needs to be set as commit_prepared's
commit_lsn (aka prepare_data.prepare_lsn)
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
g doesn't sound
unreasonable to me. So, even, if we want to extend it later by making
some checks specific to Inserts/Updates, we can do it at that time.
The comments you have at that place are sufficient to tell that in the
future we can use those checks for Updates as well. They will need
some adjustment if we remove that check but the intent is clear.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
at two places, one in
plannedstmt->relationOids and the other in plannedstmt->partitionOids.
I guess you have to do that because, in AcquireExecutorLocks, we can't
find which relationOids are corresponding to partitionOids, am I
right? If so, why not just maintain them in plannedstmt->partitionOids
and then make PlanCacheRelCallback consider it? Also, in
standard_planner, we should add these partitionOids only for
parallel-mode.
Thoughts?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 4:37 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 10:37 AM Amit Langote wrote:
> >
> > I realized that there is a race condition that will allow a concurrent
> > backend to invalidate a parallel plan (for insert into a partitioned
> >
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 5:24 PM Greg Nancarrow wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 10:07 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
>
> >Also, in
> > standard_planner, we should add these partitionOids only for
> > parallel-mode.
> >
>
> It is doing that in v20 patch (
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 1:40 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 09:06:11AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> That's perhaps not enough to be an actual objection, but I am not
> really comfortable with the concept of pushing into the tree code that
> would remain un
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 8:03 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> Having said that, I think we use
> replication origins to test it. For example:
>
> Create Table t1(c1 int);
>
> SELECT pg_replication_origin_create('regress');
> SELECT pg_replication_origin_
On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 5:07 AM Greg Nancarrow wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 11:05 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 5:24 PM Greg Nancarrow wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 10:07 PM Amit Kapila
> > > wrote:
> >
On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 7:11 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 8:03 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
>
> I have just checked via code coverage that we don't seem to have tests
> for recovery of replication origin advance for commit [1], see
> function x
rds,
Amit Kapila.
On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 6:34 PM Greg Nancarrow wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 9:35 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 8:24 AM Greg Nancarrow wrote:
> > >
> >
> > In patch v21-0003-Add-new-parallel-dml-GUC-and-table-options, we are
&
ty prepare" problem.
+ *
+ * The following code has a 2-part fix for that scenario.
No need to describe it in terms of problem and fix. You can say
something like: "This can lead to "empty prepare". We avoid this by
"
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
y, thanks for bringing this up.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
his thread.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
onality for 0002. I understand that you have kept them
for easier review but I guess at this stage it is better to merge them
so that the complete functionality can be reviewed.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
two commits in this
function (cfffe83b and 45639a05) also didn't bump the catversion.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 1:40 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 09:06:11AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > Michael, I want to push this patch soon unless you have any concerns.
>
> No concerns from me...
>
Pushed! I have tried but couldn't come up
On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 10:04 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 7, 2021 at 3:00 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 7, 2021 at 7:35 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > Please find attached the latest patch set v51*
> > >
> >
>
On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 1:26 PM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 4:19 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 10:04 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, Mar 7, 2021 at 3:00 PM Amit Kapila
> > > wrote:
> > >
On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 12:55 PM Amit Langote wrote:
>
> Hi Amit, Greg,
>
> Sorry, I hadn't noticed last week that some questions were addressed to me.
>
> On Sat, Mar 6, 2021 at 7:19 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > Thanks, your changes look good to me. I went ahead and c
; pg_ctl: server does not shut down
>
> This is because the following process does not exit:
> postgres: walsender vignesh 127.0.0.1(41550) START_REPLICATION
>
> It continuously loops at the below:
>
What happens if you don't set the two_phase option? If that also leads
to the same error then can you please also check this case on the
HEAD?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 3:54 PM Greg Nancarrow wrote:
>
> I've attached an updated set of patches with the suggested locking changes.
>
Amit L, others, do let me know if you have still more comments on
0001* patch or if you want to review it further?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
s", subid, gid);
I feel it is better to create these in pg_logical/twophase as that is
where we store other logical replication related files.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
ures, we will have to start
> > adding more message types, using meaningful characters might become
> > difficult. Should we start using numeric instead for the new feature
> > getting added?
>
> This may or may not become a problem sometime in the future, but I
> think the feedback is not really specific to the current patch set so
> I am skipping it at this time.
>
+1.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 8:09 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 6:25 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
>
> I think in case of two_phase option, replicatedPtr and sentPtr never
> becomes the same which causes this process to hang.
>
The reason is that because on subsc
I also don't see a reason why we need to make
this a necessary callback. Some plugin authors might just want 2PC
without streaming support.
Markus, others working on logical decoding plugins, do you have any
opinion on this?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 1:55 PM Markus Wanner
wrote:
>
> On 09.03.21 07:40, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > Sounds reasonable to me. I also don't see a reason why we need to make
> > this a necessary callback. Some plugin authors might just want 2PC
> > without streaming s
On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 2:23 PM Markus Wanner wrote:
>
> On 09.03.21 09:39, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > It is attached with the initial email.
>
> Oh, sorry, I looked up the initial email, but still didn't see the patch.
>
> > I think so. The behavior has to be sim
copy, it won't wait in that state because the
tablesync worker will still be in SUBREL_STATE_DATASYNC state and we
wait for SUBREL_STATE_SYNCDONE state only after the initial copy is
finished. So, I think it is a good idea to call CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS
in this loop.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 3:41 PM Markus Wanner
wrote:
>
> On 09.03.21 10:37, Amit Kapila wrote:
> I guess I don't quite understand the initial motivation for the patch.
> It states: "This allows plugins to not allow the enabling of streaming
> and two_phase at the same ti
be also used from
prepare_spoolfile_replay_messages.
6. I think we should also write some commentary about prepared
transactions atop of worker.c as we have done for streamed
transactions.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 9:07 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Amit Kapila writes:
> > Enable parallel SELECT for "INSERT INTO ... SELECT ...".
>
> skink (valgrind) is unhappy:
>
> creating configuration files ... ok
> running bootstrap script ... ok
> performing pos
On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 7:19 PM Amit Langote wrote:
>
> Hi Amit
>
> On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 10:18 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 3:54 PM Greg Nancarrow wrote:
> > > I've attached an updated set of patches with the suggested locking
> > >
be
> nice, I think.
>
How the proposed 'xid' parameter can be useful? What exactly plugins
want to do with it?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 4:26 PM Markus Wanner
wrote:
>
> On 10.03.21 11:18, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 2:14 PM Markus Wanner
> > wrote:
> >> currently, only the gid is passed on to the filter_prepare callback.
> >> While we probably should
hange the variable type to
uint64.
Any better ideas?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
> OK, attached, to be prepared for the distant future when NBuffers becomes
> 64-bit.
>
Thanks for the patch. Pushed!
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
ing out these problems.
>
> I have tested the triggerdesc bugfix patch with CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS flag.
> It passed the testset where is fail in buildfarm (foreign_key, foreign_data).
>
Thanks for the patch and review. It looks good to me as well and
passes the tests (foreign_key, foreign_data) with CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS
flag.
I'll review the second patch of Greg.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
be tricky.
So users need to probably recreate the slots and then perform the
tablesync again via Alter Subscription ... Refresh Publication. Also,
that might require truncating the previous data. I am also not very
sure about the procedure but maybe someone else can correct me or add
more to it.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
atch on the table which can prove or disprove that
theory. The only thing that we can see that even if parallel
updates/deletes have overhead, it might not be due to similar reasons.
Also, I guess the parallel-copy might need somewhat similar
parallel-safety checking w.r.t partitioned tables and I feel the
current proposed guc/reloption can be used for the same as it is quite
a similar operation.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
ng inserts in parallel-mode. The others seem to be
related to update/delete, so we have not done anything, but maybe it
is better to mark them as 'unsafe' now, and later when we support the
update/delete in parallel-mode, we can see if any of those can be
executed in parallel-mode. But OTOH, we can keep them as it is if they
don't impact the current operation we have supported in parallel-mode.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 2:44 PM Markus Wanner
wrote:
>
> On 11.03.21 04:58, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > But this happens when we are decoding prepare, so it is clear that the
> > transaction is prepared, why any additional check?
>
> An output plugin cannot assume the transacti
he state to 'enable' so that future restarts won't
send this option again. Now on the publisher side, if this option is
present, it will change the value of two_phase_at in the slot to
start_decoding_at. I think something on these lines should be much
easier than the spool-file implementation unless we see any problem
with this idea.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
mments or suggestions for this patch.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
v28-0001-Add-a-new-GUC-and-a-reloption-to-enable-inserts-.patch
Description: Binary data
fresh
materialize view function so that it would be easier for future
readers to understand why we have not enabled parallelism for this
case.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 11:34 AM Justin Pryzby wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 11:25:26AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 3:01 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Attaching new version patch with this change.
> >
> >
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 6:00 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> This seems to be a new low frequency failure, I didn't see it mentioned
> already:
>
Thanks for reporting, I'll look into it.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 9:00 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 6:00 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > This seems to be a new low frequency failure, I didn't see it mentioned
> > already:
> >
>
> Thanks for reporting
r someone else is interested in
providing a patch for this.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 6:14 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 2:04 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>>
>> I think something on these lines should be much
>> easier than the spool-file implementation unless we see any problem
>> with this idea.
>>
>
&
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 5:27 PM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 7:20 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 3:35 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > I noticed that the PG docs [1] for the catalog pg_subscription doesn't
>
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 6:22 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 6:14 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 2:04 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >>
>
> 2) table_states_not_ready global variable is used immediately after
> c
On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 8:51 AM Justin Pryzby wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 10:45:34AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 8:59 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > While updating the streaming stats patch, it occurred to me that we
> > can write a
On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 9:47 AM Greg Nancarrow wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 9:26 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
>
> Posting an update to the smaller patch (Parallel SELECT for INSERT
> INTO...SELECT...).
>
> Most of this patch feeds into the larger Parallel INSERT p
On Sun, Oct 25, 2020 at 9:39 PM Euler Taveira
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 5 Oct 2020 at 08:34, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 2:41 AM Euler Taveira
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > While looking at an old wal2json issue, I st
On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 5:26 AM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 06:19:42PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> >On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 09:17:43AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >> On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 8:51 AM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> >> >
> >>
On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 10:24 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 2:09 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
>
> I have fixed the above comment and rebased the patch. I have changed
> the docs a bit to add more explanation about the counters. Let me know
> if you have a
read. Please see if you
can make these and similar macros as functions unless they are doing
few memory instructions. Having functions makes it easier to debug the
code as well.
[1] -
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAJcOf-cgfjj0NfYPrNFGmQJxsnNW102LTXbzqxQJuziar1EKfQ%40mail.gmail.com
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 11:45 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 7:06 PM vignesh C wrote:
> >
> [latest version]
>
> I think the parallel-safety checks in this patch
> (v9-0002-Allow-copy-from-command-to-process-data-from-file) are
> incomplete and wrong
On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 5:16 AM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 08:54:53AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 10:24 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 2:09 PM Amit Kapila
> >> wrote:
> >>
lbacks.prepare_cb != NULL) ||
+ (ctx->callbacks.commit_prepared_cb != NULL) ||
+ (ctx->callbacks.rollback_prepared_cb != NULL) ||
+ (ctx->callbacks.filter_prepare_cb != NULL);
+
I think stream_prepare_cb should be checked for the 'twophase' flag
because we won't use this unless two-phase is enabled. Am I missing
something?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 6:26 PM Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 at 18:23, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 11:50 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > At Thu, 22 Oct 2020 22:31:41 -0300, Alvaro Herrera
>
On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 6:09 AM Greg Nancarrow wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 8:56 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > IIUC, below is code for this workaround:
> >
> > +MaxRelParallelHazardForModify(Oid relid,
> > + CmdType commandType,
> &
On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 10:37 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 2:46 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> Hi Amit
>
> > You mentioned in the beginning that you prefer to use Enum instead of
> > define so that switch cases can detect any remaining items but I have
On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 11:50 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 10:37 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> >
> > IIUC getting rid of the default from the switch can make the missing
> > enum detection easier because then you can use -Wswitch option to
> >
On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 2:46 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 11:19 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> >
> > 6.
> > +pg_decode_stream_prepare(LogicalDecodingContext *ctx,
> > + ReorderBufferTXN *txn,
> > + XLogRecPtr prepare_lsn)
On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 5:05 PM Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 at 09:16, Amit Kapila wrote
>>
>> I think we can simply use 'return apply_handle_begin;' instead of
>> adding return in another line. Again, I think we changed this handli
esql.org/message-id/20200413201633.cki4nsptynq7blhg%40alap3.anarazel.de
[2] -
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20200415181913.4gjqcnuzxfzbbzxa%40alap3.anarazel.de
[3] -
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/78C0107E-62F2-4F76-BFD8-34C73B716944%40anarazel.de
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 5:52 PM Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
>
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 at 17:37, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Other than that the patch looks good to me.
>>
>
> Patch with updated commit message and also the list of reviewers
>
Thanks, pushed!
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
execute invalidations (which are present in top-level txn) for
the reasons mentioned in ReorderBufferForget. Also, if we do this,
don't forget to update the comment atop
ReorderBufferImmediateInvalidation.
3.
+ /* This is a PREPARED transaction, part of a two-phase commit.
+ * The full cleanup will happen as part of the COMMIT PREPAREDs, so now
+ * just truncate txn by removing changes and tuple_cids
+ */
+ ReorderBufferTruncateTXN(rb, txn, true);
The first line in the multi-line comment should be empty.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
h deleted tuples must
>
> - * Callers supply a page_read callback if they want to to call
> + * Callers supply a page_read callback if they want to call
>
LGTM. I'll push this in some time, thanks.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 8:27 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 7:09 AM Hou, Zhijie wrote:
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > I found some possible typo in procarray.c and xlogreader.h
> >
> > - * For VACUUM separate horizons (used to to decide which d
On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 4:11 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
Few Comments on v15-0003-Support-2PC-txn-pgoutput
===
1. This patch needs to be rebased after commit 644f0d7cc9 and requires
some adjustments accordingly.
2.
if (flags != 0)
elog(ER
On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 12:40 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>
> On 02/11/2020 08:14, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 10:11 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >>
> >> In this design, you don't need to keep line boundaries in shared memory,
> >>
+}
>
> Thanks, at least for INSERT, it's not needed, so I'll remove it.
>
Or you might want to consider moving the check related to
IsModifySupportedInParallelMode() inside
PrepareParallelModeForModify(). That way the code might look a bit
cleaner.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
at the given "char
> *name" has the length of NAMEDATALEN. It actually is, but that
> assumption seems a bit bogus. I think it should use strlcpy instead.
>
Agreed.
Your patch looks good to me.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 3:01 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 9:40 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 10:50 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> > 2.
> > +DecodePrepare(LogicalDecodingContext *ctx, XLogRecordBuffer *buf,
> >
SCAN_THRESHOLD then you would anyway have to scan the
entire shared buffers so the work done in optimized path for other two
relations will add some over head.
Also, as written, I think you need to remove the nodes for which you
have invalidated the buffers via optimized path, no.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
301 - 400 of 6713 matches
Mail list logo
