On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 3:06 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > + * We can't use TransactionIdDidAbort here because it won't treat
> > transactions
> > + * that were in progress during a crash as aborted by now. We determine
> > that
> > + * transactions aborted/crashed through process of elimination
Hi,
On 2023-01-11 14:29:25 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 7, 2023 at 7:25 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > Probably a good idea, although it doesn't neatly fit right now.
>
> I'll leave it for now.
>
> Attached is v2, which changes things based on your feedback. Would
> like to get
On Sat, Jan 7, 2023 at 7:25 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> Probably a good idea, although it doesn't neatly fit right now.
I'll leave it for now.
Attached is v2, which changes things based on your feedback. Would
like to get this out of the way soon.
> > Also, does amcheck's get_xid_status() need a
Hi,
On 2023-01-07 15:41:29 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Do we need to do anything about this to the "pg_xact and pg_subtrans"
> section of the transam README?
Probably a good idea, although it doesn't neatly fit right now.
> Also, does amcheck's get_xid_status() need a reference to these
On Sat, Jan 7, 2023 at 1:47 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > What do you think of the attached patch, which revises comments over
> > TransactionIdDidAbort, and adds something about it to the top of
> > heapam_visbility.c?
>
> Mostly looks good to me. I think it'd be good to add a reference to the
>
Hi,
On 2023-01-06 11:16:00 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 10:52 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > > And it'd make sense to have
> > > the explanation of why TransactionIdDidAbort() isn't the same as
> > > !TransactionIdDidCommit(), even for !TransactionIdIsInProgress() xacts,
On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 10:52 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > And it'd make sense to have
> > the explanation of why TransactionIdDidAbort() isn't the same as
> > !TransactionIdDidCommit(), even for !TransactionIdIsInProgress() xacts, near
> > the explanation for doing TransactionIdIsInProgress()
On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 10:59 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> You are an extremely valuable person for this project and I wish that
> you continue working with the same enthusiasm.
Thank you, Amit. Knowing that my efforts are appreciated by colleagues
does make it easier to persevere.
--
Peter Geoghegan
On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 11:30 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 7:03 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> > But that having been said, I'm kind of astonished that you didn't know
> > about this already. The freezing behavior is in general extremely hard
> > to get right, and I guess I feel
On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 10:41 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> > It's currently possible for VACUUM to set the all-frozen bit while
> > unsetting the all-visible bit, due to a race condition [1]. This is
> > your long standing bug. So apparently nobody is qualified to commit
> > patches in this area.
>
>
Hi,
On 2023-01-04 09:59:37 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 7:03 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> > and which functions return fully reliable results, I do
> > not think you should be committing your own patches in this area.
>
> My mistake here had nothing to do with my own goals.
On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 7:03 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> But that having been said, I'm kind of astonished that you didn't know
> about this already. The freezing behavior is in general extremely hard
> to get right, and I guess I feel if you don't understand how the
> underlying functions work,
On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 1:53 AM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> I think that we should definitely have a comment directly over
> TransactionIdDidAbort(). Though I wouldn't mind reorganizing these
> other comments, or making the comment over TransactionIdDidAbort()
> mostly just point to the other
On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 4:54 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> There's some changes from TransactionIdDidCommit() to !TransactionIdDidAbort()
> that don't look right to me. If the server crashed while xid X was
> in-progress, TransactionIdDidCommit(X) will return false, but so will
>
Hi,
On 2023-01-03 19:23:41 +, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Delay commit status checks until freezing executes.
>
> pg_xact lookups are relatively expensive. Move the xmin/xmax commit
> status checks from the point that freeze plans are prepared to the point
> that they're actually executed.
On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 10:47 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> IMO the comment at the top mentioning why the TransactionIdIsInProgress()
> calls are crucial / need to be done first would be considerably more likely to
> be found in transam.c than heapam_visibility.c.
Yeah, but they're duplicated anyway.
Hi,
On 2023-01-03 22:41:35 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 10:33 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > I'd say a comment above TransactionIdDidAbort() referencing an overview
> > comment at the top of the file? I think it might be worth moving the comment
> > from
On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 10:33 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> I'd say a comment above TransactionIdDidAbort() referencing an overview
> comment at the top of the file? I think it might be worth moving the comment
> from heapam_visibility.c to transam.c?
What comments in heapam_visibility.c should we be
Hi,
On 2023-01-03 20:29:53 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 7:56 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > I don't know - I think there's a explicit comment somewhere, but I couldn't
> > find it immediately. There's a bunch of indirect references to in in
> > heapam_visibility.c, with
On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 8:29 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> I find this astonishing. Why isn't there a prominent comment that
> advertises that TransactionIdDidAbort() just doesn't work reliably?
I pushed a fix for this now.
We should add a comment about this issue to TransactionIdDidAbort()
header
On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 7:56 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> I still think these moderation rules are deeply unhelpful...
Yes, it is rather annoying.
> I don't know - I think there's a explicit comment somewhere, but I couldn't
> find it immediately. There's a bunch of indirect references to in in
>
Hi,
On 2023-01-03 17:54:37 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> (Pruning -committers from the list, since cross-posting to -hackers
> resulted in this being held up for moderation.)
I still think these moderation rules are deeply unhelpful...
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 5:15 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
(Pruning -committers from the list, since cross-posting to -hackers
resulted in this being held up for moderation.)
On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 5:15 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 4:54 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > There's some changes from TransactionIdDidCommit() to
> >
23 matches
Mail list logo
