On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 3:01 AM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 4:29 AM, Kuntal Ghosh
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 7:52 PM, Dilip Kumar wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 7:47 PM, Kuntal Ghosh
>>> wrote:
> IMHO, It's not a good idea to use DSM call to verify the DSA ha
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 13:55:26 -0400
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Yugo Nagata wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > As I report in another thread[1], I found the autovacuum launcher occurs
> > the following error in PG 10 when this received SIGINT. I can repuroduce
> > this by pg_cancel_backend or `kill -2 `.
>
> Th
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 7:02 AM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Thomas Munro wrote:
>> I thought about this when designing the DSA API. I couldn't think of
>> any good reason to provide an 'am-I-already-attached?' function
>> equivalent to dsm_find_mapping. It seemed to me that the client code
>> shoul
Thomas Munro wrote:
> I thought about this when designing the DSA API. I couldn't think of
> any good reason to provide an 'am-I-already-attached?' function
> equivalent to dsm_find_mapping. It seemed to me that the client code
> shouldn't ever be in any doubt about whether it's attached, and th
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 4:29 AM, Kuntal Ghosh
wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 7:52 PM, Dilip Kumar wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 7:47 PM, Kuntal Ghosh
>> wrote:
IMHO, It's not a good idea to use DSM call to verify the DSA handle.
>>> Okay. Is there any particular scenario you've i
Yugo Nagata wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As I report in another thread[1], I found the autovacuum launcher occurs
> the following error in PG 10 when this received SIGINT. I can repuroduce
> this by pg_cancel_backend or `kill -2 `.
Thanks for the report, BTW!
--
Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2n
Thomas Munro wrote:
> Hmm. So the problem here is that AutoVacLauncherMain assumes that
> there are only two possibilities: (1) there is no handle published in
> shmem yet, so we should create a DSA area and publish the handle, and
> (2) there is a handle published in shmem so we should attach to
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 6:10 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 2:44 PM, Kuntal Ghosh
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 9:48 AM, Michael Paquier
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 1:29 AM, Kuntal Ghosh
>>> wrote:
But, I've some more doubts.
1. When should we use
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 2:44 PM, Kuntal Ghosh
wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 9:48 AM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 1:29 AM, Kuntal Ghosh
>> wrote:
>>> But, I've some more doubts.
>>> 1. When should we use dsm_find_mapping()? (The first few lines of
>>> dsm_attach is same
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 9:48 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 1:29 AM, Kuntal Ghosh
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 7:52 PM, Dilip Kumar wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 7:47 PM, Kuntal Ghosh
>>> wrote:
> IMHO, It's not a good idea to use DSM call to verify the DSA
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 13:12:48 +0900
Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 9:15 PM, Yugo Nagata wrote:
> > This errors continue until this process is terminated or the server is
> > restarted.
> >
> > When SIGINT is issued, the process exits from the main loop and returns
> > to sigset
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 1:29 AM, Kuntal Ghosh
wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 7:52 PM, Dilip Kumar wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 7:47 PM, Kuntal Ghosh
>> wrote:
IMHO, It's not a good idea to use DSM call to verify the DSA handle.
>>> Okay. Is there any particular scenario you've i
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 9:15 PM, Yugo Nagata wrote:
> This errors continue until this process is terminated or the server is
> restarted.
>
> When SIGINT is issued, the process exits from the main loop and returns
> to sigsetjmp, and calls dsa_attach() before entering into the loop again,
> this
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 7:52 PM, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 7:47 PM, Kuntal Ghosh
> wrote:
>>> IMHO, It's not a good idea to use DSM call to verify the DSA handle.
>>>
>> Okay. Is there any particular scenario you've in mind where this may fail?
>
> It's not about failure, but a
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 7:47 PM, Kuntal Ghosh
wrote:
>> IMHO, It's not a good idea to use DSM call to verify the DSA handle.
>>
> Okay. Is there any particular scenario you've in mind where this may fail?
It's not about failure, but about the abstraction. When we are using
the DSA we should not
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 7:07 PM, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Kuntal Ghosh
> wrote:
>> I think we can just check dsm_find_mapping() to check whether the dsm
>> handle is already attached. Something like,
>>
>> }
>> - else
>> + else if(!dsm_find_mapping
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Kuntal Ghosh
wrote:
> I think we can just check dsm_find_mapping() to check whether the dsm
> handle is already attached. Something like,
>
> }
> - else
> + else if(!dsm_find_mapping(AutoVacuumShmem->av_dsa_handle))
> {
>
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 5:45 PM, Yugo Nagata wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As I report in another thread[1], I found the autovacuum launcher occurs
> the following error in PG 10 when this received SIGINT. I can repuroduce
> this by pg_cancel_backend or `kill -2 `.
>
> 2017-06-21 13:56:07.010 JST [32483] ERROR
Hi,
As I report in another thread[1], I found the autovacuum launcher occurs
the following error in PG 10 when this received SIGINT. I can repuroduce
this by pg_cancel_backend or `kill -2 `.
2017-06-21 13:56:07.010 JST [32483] ERROR: canceling statement due to user
request
2017-06-21 13:56:08.0
19 matches
Mail list logo
