On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 9:28 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> Something is causing this new compiler warning:
>>>
>>> setup.c: In function ‘setup_dynamic_shared_memory’:
>>> setup.c:102:3: error: format ‘%llu’ expects argu
Robert Haas writes:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 9:28 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Something is causing this new compiler warning:
>>
>> setup.c: In function setup_dynamic_shared_memory:
>> setup.c:102:3: error: format %llu expects argument of type long long
>> unsigned int, but argument 2
On 2014-01-15 10:19:32 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 9:28 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Something is causing this new compiler warning:
> >
> > setup.c: In function ‘setup_dynamic_shared_memory’:
> > setup.c:102:3: error: format ‘%llu’ expects argument of type ‘long long
>
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 9:53 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> I'm not seeing that one but I am now getting these:
>
> setup.c: In function ‘test_shm_mq_setup’:
> setup.c:65:25: warning: ‘outq’ may be used uninitialized in this function
> [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
> setup.c:66:24: warning: ‘inq’ may be u
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 9:28 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Something is causing this new compiler warning:
>
> setup.c: In function ‘setup_dynamic_shared_memory’:
> setup.c:102:3: error: format ‘%llu’ expects argument of type ‘long long
> unsigned int’, but argument 2 has type ‘Size’ [-Werror=for
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 4:32 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>> Robert Haas escribió:
>>> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Thom Brown wrote:
>>> > LOG: worker process: test_shm_mq (PID 22041) exited with exit code 1
>>> > LOG: unregistering ba
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Something is causing this new compiler warning:
>
> setup.c: In function ‘setup_dynamic_shared_memory’:
> setup.c:102:3: error: format ‘%llu’ expects argument of type ‘long long
> unsigned
> int’, but argument 2 has type ‘Size’ [-Werror=format=]
I'm not seeing that one
Something is causing this new compiler warning:
setup.c: In function ‘setup_dynamic_shared_memory’:
setup.c:102:3: error: format ‘%llu’ expects argument of type ‘long long
unsigned int’, but argument 2 has type ‘Size’ [-Werror=format=]
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@po
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Robert Haas escribió:
>> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Thom Brown wrote:
>> > LOG: worker process: test_shm_mq (PID 22041) exited with exit code 1
>> > LOG: unregistering background worker "test_shm_mq"
>>
>> This is (perhaps unfortun
Robert Haas escribió:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Thom Brown wrote:
> > LOG: worker process: test_shm_mq (PID 22041) exited with exit code 1
> > LOG: unregistering background worker "test_shm_mq"
>
> This is (perhaps unfortunately) required by the background-worker API.
> When a proce
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Thom Brown wrote:
> postgres=# SELECT test_shm_mq(32768, (select
> string_agg(chr(32+(random()*96)::int), '') from generate_series(1,3)),
> 1, 10);
> ERROR: could not register background process
> HINT: You may need to increase max_worker_processes.
> STATEMENT:
On 14 January 2014 17:29, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Oh, dear. That's rather embarrassing.
>>
>> Incremental (incremental-shm-mq.patch) and full (shm-mq-v3.patch)
>> patches attached.
>
> OK, I have pushed the patches in this stack. I'm not sure
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> Oh, dear. That's rather embarrassing.
>
> Incremental (incremental-shm-mq.patch) and full (shm-mq-v3.patch)
> patches attached.
OK, I have pushed the patches in this stack. I'm not sure we quite
concluded the review back-and-forth but nobod
This patch didn't make it out of the 2013-11 commit fest. You should
move it to the next commit fest (probably with an updated patch) before
January 15th.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailp
On 2013-12-20 22:04:05 +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2013-12-18 15:23:23 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > It sounds like most people who have looked at this stuff are broadly
> > happy with it, so I'd like to push on toward commit soon, but it'd be
> > helpful, Andres, if you could review
Hi,
On 2013-12-18 15:23:23 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> It sounds like most people who have looked at this stuff are broadly
> happy with it, so I'd like to push on toward commit soon, but it'd be
> helpful, Andres, if you could review the comment additions to
> shm-mq-v2.patch and see whether thos
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-12-20 14:10:57 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> > Since you're embedding spinlocks in struct shm_toc, this module will be
>> > in conflict with platforms that do --disable-spinlocks, since the number
>> > of spinlocks essentially needs to
On 2013-12-20 14:10:57 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > Since you're embedding spinlocks in struct shm_toc, this module will be
> > in conflict with platforms that do --disable-spinlocks, since the number
> > of spinlocks essentially needs to be predetermined there. I personally
> > still think the so
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-10-31 12:21:31 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Patch #2, shm-toc-v1.patch, provides a facility for sizing a dynamic
>> shared memory segment before creation, and for dividing it up into
>> chunks after it's been created. It therefore se
On 2013-10-31 12:21:31 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> Patch #2, shm-toc-v1.patch, provides a facility for sizing a dynamic
> shared memory segment before creation, and for dividing it up into
> chunks after it's been created. It therefore serves a function quite
> similar to RequestAddinShmemSpace, e
On 2013-12-18 15:23:23 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> It sounds like most people who have looked at this stuff are broadly
> happy with it, so I'd like to push on toward commit soon, but it'd be
> helpful, Andres, if you could review the comment additions to
> shm-mq-v2.patch and see whether those add
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
> 2013/12/6 Kohei KaiGai :
>> What will happen if sender tries to send a large chunk that needs to
>> be split into multiple sub-chunks and receiver concurrently detaches
>> itself from the queue during the writes by sender?
>> It seems to me the
2013/12/6 Kohei KaiGai :
> What will happen if sender tries to send a large chunk that needs to
> be split into multiple sub-chunks and receiver concurrently detaches
> itself from the queue during the writes by sender?
> It seems to me the sender gets SHM_MQ_DETACHED and only
> earlier half of the
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 8:12 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-12-05 14:07:39 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> > Hm. The API change of on_shmem_exit() is going to cause a fair bit of
>> > pain. There are a fair number of extensions out there usi
On 2013-12-05 14:07:39 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Hm. The API change of on_shmem_exit() is going to cause a fair bit of
> > pain. There are a fair number of extensions out there using it and all
> > would need to be littered by version depe
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Patch #1, on-dsm-detach-v1.patch, adds the concept of on_dsm_detach
>> hooks
>> [snip]
>> The part of this patch which I
>> suppose will elicit some controversy is that I've had to rearrange
>> on_shmem_exit a bit. It turns out that during s
Sorry for my late.
I checked the part-3 (shm-mq-v1.patc) portion as below.
Your comments towards part-1 and part-2 are reasonable for me,
so I have no argue on this portion.
Even though shm_mq_create() expects the "address" is aligned,
however, no mechanism to ensure. How about to put Assert() he
Hi,
Planned to look at this for a while... Not a detailed review, just some
thoughts. I'll let what I read sink in and possibly comment later.
On 2013-10-31 12:21:31 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> The attached patches attempt to rectify some of these problems.
Well, I wouldn't call it problems. Jus
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 12:33 AM, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
> * on-dsm-detach-v2.patch
> It reminded me the hook registration/invocation mechanism on apache/httpd.
> It defines five levels for invocation order (REALLY_FIRST, FIRST, MIDDLE,
> LAST, REALLY_LAST), but these are alias of integer values, in
Hello,
I tried to look at the patch #1 and #2 at first, but I shall rest of
portion later.
* basic checks
All the patches (not only #1, #2) can be applied without any problem towards
the latest master branch. Its build was succeeded with Werror.
Regression test works fine on the core and contrib/
This patch needs to be rebased.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
31 matches
Mail list logo
