On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 10:42 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > Am I the only that that thinks this code is doing far too much in a
> > PG_CATCH block?
>
> You mean the one in ReorderBufferProcessTXN? Yeah, that is mighty
> ugly. It might be all right given that it almost
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Am I the only that that thinks this code is doing far too much in a
> PG_CATCH block?
You mean the one in ReorderBufferProcessTXN? Yeah, that is mighty
ugly. It might be all right given that it almost immediately does
AbortCurrentTransaction, since that should
On 2021-Sep-06, Amit Kapila wrote:
> The error can occur at multiple places (like via palloc or various
> other places) between the first time we subtract the change_size and
> add it back after the change is re-computed. I think the correct fix
> would be that in the beginning we just compute
On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 2:02 PM Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
>
> On 9/7/21 9:11 AM, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
> >
>
> Please find enclosed patch v2 (for the master branch) implementing the
> modified approach of option 2) proposed by Amit.
>
The patch looks good to me. I have made a minor modification
On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 11:33 AM Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 9/7/21 7:58 AM, Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 11:10 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
>> >> Isn't it better if we use option 2) at all places as then we won't
>> >> need any special check inside
On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 11:10 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>> Isn't it better if we use option 2) at all places as then we won't
> >> need any special check inside ReorderBufferChangeMemoryUpdate()?
> >
> >
> > If we want to do this then be careful about
> REORDER_BUFFER_CHANGE_INTERNAL_TUPLECID change.
On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 11:08 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 8:38 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 9:14 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>> >
>> > On Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 8:54 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for your feedback!
>> >>
>> >> That seems
On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 8:38 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 9:14 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 8:54 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks for your feedback!
> >>
> >> That seems indeed more logical, so I see 3 options to do so:
> >>
> >> 1) Add a
On Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 9:14 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 8:54 PM Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for your feedback!
>>
>> That seems indeed more logical, so I see 3 options to do so:
>>
>> 1) Add a new API say ReorderBufferChangeMemorySubstractSize() (with a Size
>>
On Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 8:54 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
wrote:
> Thanks for your feedback!
>
> That seems indeed more logical, so I see 3 options to do so:
>
> 1) Add a new API say ReorderBufferChangeMemorySubstractSize() (with a
> Size as one parameter) and make use of it in
On Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 4:04 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 3:15 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Please find attached a patch proposal to avoid the failed assertion (by
> ensuring that ReorderBufferChangeMemoryUpdate() being triggered with
> "addition" set to false in
On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 3:15 PM Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
>
>
> Please find attached a patch proposal to avoid the failed assertion (by
> ensuring that ReorderBufferChangeMemoryUpdate() being triggered with
> "addition" set to false in ReorderBufferToastReplace() is done after the
>
12 matches
Mail list logo
