On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 9:35 AM shiy.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 12:01 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks. I think it is better to go ahead with this patch and once we
> > > decide what is the right thing to do in terms of GUC then we can try
> > > to add additional
On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 12:01 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 9:28 AM Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 6, 2022 at 11:55 AM shiy.f...@fujitsu.com
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 6:57 PM Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 3:41 PM Dilip
On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 9:28 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 6, 2022 at 11:55 AM shiy.f...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 6:57 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 3:41 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I think we need something like this[1] so
On Tue, Dec 6, 2022 at 11:55 AM shiy.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 6:57 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 3:41 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > >
> > > I think we need something like this[1] so that we can better control
> > > the streaming.
> > >
> >
> > +1. The
On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 6:57 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 3:41 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > I think we need something like this[1] so that we can better control
> > the streaming.
> >
>
> +1. The additional advantage would be that we can generate parallel
> apply and new
On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 3:41 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 9:21 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 8:59 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, Dec 4, 2022 at 5:14 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Saturday, December 3, 2022 7:37 PM
On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 9:21 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 8:59 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 4, 2022 at 5:14 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Saturday, December 3, 2022 7:37 PM Amit Kapila
> > > wrote:
> > > > Apart from the above, I have
On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 8:59 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 4, 2022 at 5:14 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, December 3, 2022 7:37 PM Amit Kapila
> > wrote:
> > > Apart from the above, I have slightly adjusted the comments in the
> > > attached. Do
> > > let me
On Sun, Dec 4, 2022 at 5:14 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> On Saturday, December 3, 2022 7:37 PM Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> > Apart from the above, I have slightly adjusted the comments in the
> > attached. Do
> > let me know what you think of the attached.
>
> Thanks for updating the patch.
On Saturday, December 3, 2022 7:37 PM Amit Kapila
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 12:23 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 12:08 PM Dilip Kumar
> wrote:
> >
> > I have few comments about the patch.
> >
> > 1.
> >
> > 1.1.
> > - /* For streamed
On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 12:23 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 12:08 PM Dilip Kumar
> wrote:
>
> I have few comments about the patch.
>
> 1.
>
> 1.1.
> - /* For streamed transactions notify the remote node about the abort.
> */
> - if
On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 4:58 PM Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
>
> Hi Dilip,
>
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 9:38 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > You are right we need this in ReorderBufferProcessPartialChange() as
> > > well. I will fix this in the next version.
> >
> > Fixed this in the attached
Hi Dilip,
On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 9:38 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> >
> > You are right we need this in ReorderBufferProcessPartialChange() as
> > well. I will fix this in the next version.
>
> Fixed this in the attached patch.
>
I focused my attention on SnapBuildXactNeedsSkip() usages and I see
On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 12:08 PM Dilip Kumar
wrote:
Hi,
>
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 3:19 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 1:46 PM shiy.f...@fujitsu.com
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks for your patch.
> > >
> > > I saw that the patch added a check when selecting
On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 3:19 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 1:46 PM shiy.f...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for your patch.
> >
> > I saw that the patch added a check when selecting largest transaction, but
> > in
> > addition to ReorderBufferCheckMemoryLimit(), the
On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 1:46 PM shiy.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> Thanks for your patch.
>
> I saw that the patch added a check when selecting largest transaction, but in
> addition to ReorderBufferCheckMemoryLimit(), the transaction can also be
> streamed in ReorderBufferProcessPartialChange().
On Sun, Nov 27, 2022 1:33 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Sat, Nov 26, 2022 at 12:15 PM Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 5:38 PM Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 1:35 PM Dilip Kumar
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > During DecodeCommit() for skipping a
On Sat, Nov 26, 2022 at 12:15 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 5:38 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 1:35 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > >
> > > During DecodeCommit() for skipping a transaction we use ReadRecPtr to
> > > check whether to skip this transaction or
On Sat, Nov 26, 2022 at 10:59 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 4:04 PM Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
> >
> > Excellent catch. We were looking at this code last week and wondered
> > the purpose of this abort. Probably we should have some macro or
> > function to decided whether to
On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 5:38 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 1:35 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > During DecodeCommit() for skipping a transaction we use ReadRecPtr to
> > check whether to skip this transaction or not. Whereas in
> > ReorderBufferCanStartStreaming() we use
On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 4:04 PM Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
>
> Excellent catch. We were looking at this code last week and wondered
> the purpose of this abort. Probably we should have some macro or
> function to decided whether to skip a transaction based on log record.
> That will avoid using
On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 1:35 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> During DecodeCommit() for skipping a transaction we use ReadRecPtr to
> check whether to skip this transaction or not. Whereas in
> ReorderBufferCanStartStreaming() we use EndRecPtr to check whether to
> stream or not. Generally it will not
Excellent catch. We were looking at this code last week and wondered
the purpose of this abort. Probably we should have some macro or
function to decided whether to skip a transaction based on log record.
That will avoid using different values in different places.
On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 1:35 PM
During DecodeCommit() for skipping a transaction we use ReadRecPtr to
check whether to skip this transaction or not. Whereas in
ReorderBufferCanStartStreaming() we use EndRecPtr to check whether to
stream or not. Generally it will not create a problem but if the
commit record itself is adding
24 matches
Mail list logo
