On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 10:35 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2023-Aug-29, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 5:35 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 8:15 PM Amit Kapila
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > IMO there are inconsistencies in the second patch that was
On 2023-Aug-29, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 5:35 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 8:15 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > IMO there are inconsistencies in the second patch that was pushed.
> I find your suggestions reasonable. Alvaro, do you have any comments?
On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 5:35 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 8:15 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> IMO there are inconsistencies in the second patch that was pushed.
>
> 1. In the am_xxx functions, why is there Assert 'in_use' only for the
> APPLY / PARALLEL_APPLY workers but not for
On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 8:15 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 3:48 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 1:20 PM Alvaro Herrera
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2023-Aug-24, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 1:31 PM Alvaro Herrera
> > > >
On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 3:48 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 1:20 PM Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> >
> > On 2023-Aug-24, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 1:31 PM Alvaro Herrera
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > > Hmm, I think if worker->in_use is false, we shouldn't
On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 9:09 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 8:18 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 1:20 PM Alvaro Herrera
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2023-Aug-24, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 1:31 PM Alvaro Herrera
> > > >
On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 8:18 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 1:20 PM Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> >
> > On 2023-Aug-24, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 1:31 PM Alvaro Herrera
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > > Hmm, I think if worker->in_use is false, we shouldn't
On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 1:20 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2023-Aug-24, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 1:31 PM Alvaro Herrera
> > wrote:
>
> > > Hmm, I think if worker->in_use is false, we shouldn't consult the rest
> > > of the struct at all, so I propose to add the
On 2023-Aug-24, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 1:31 PM Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> > Hmm, I think if worker->in_use is false, we shouldn't consult the rest
> > of the struct at all, so I propose to add the attached 0001 as a minimal
> > fix.
>
> I think that way we may need to add
On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 1:31 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2023-Aug-23, Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) wrote:
>
> > [1]--
> > LWLockAcquire(LogicalRepWorkerLock, LW_SHARED);
> >
> > workers = logicalrep_workers_find(MyLogicalRepWorker->subid,
> > true);
> >
On 2023-Aug-23, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> And the reason 0002 does not remove the zeroing of ->proc is that the
> tests gets stuck when I do that, and the reason for that looks to be
> some shoddy coding in WaitForReplicationWorkerAttach, so I propose we
> change that too, as in 0003.
Hmm,
On 2023-Aug-23, Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) wrote:
> [1]--
> LWLockAcquire(LogicalRepWorkerLock, LW_SHARED);
>
> workers = logicalrep_workers_find(MyLogicalRepWorker->subid,
> true);
> foreach(lc, workers)
> {
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 10:27 AM
> To: Thomas Munro
> Cc: Amit Kapila ; pgsql-hackers
>
> Subject: RE: subscription/015_stream sometimes breaks
>
> On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 4:55 AM Thomas Mun
On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 at 02:25, Thomas Munro wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 8:21 AM Thomas Munro wrote:
> > I didn't study it closely but it looks like there might be a second
> > deadlock, after the one that is expected by the test? Examples from
> > the past couple of weeks:
>
> I should
On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 4:55 AM Thomas Munro
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 8:21 AM Thomas Munro
> wrote:
> > I didn't study it closely but it looks like there might be a second
> > deadlock, after the one that is expected by the test? Examples from
> > the past couple of weeks:
>
On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 8:21 AM Thomas Munro wrote:
> I didn't study it closely but it looks like there might be a second
> deadlock, after the one that is expected by the test? Examples from
> the past couple of weeks:
I should add, it's not correlated with the patches that cfbot is
testing,
Hi,
A couple of times a day, cfbot reports an error like this:
https://cirrus-ci.com/task/6424286882168832
I didn't study it closely but it looks like there might be a second
deadlock, after the one that is expected by the test? Examples from
the past couple of weeks:
cfbot=> select
17 matches
Mail list logo