On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 7:14 PM John Naylor
wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 9, 2022 at 8:33 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 9, 2022 at 5:53 PM John Naylor
> > wrote:
> > >
>
> > > I don't think that'd be very controversial,
On Fri, Dec 9, 2022 at 5:53 PM John Naylor wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 9, 2022 at 8:20 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> > In the meanwhile, I've been working on vacuum integration. There are
> > two things I'd like to discuss some time:
> >
> > The firs
On Fri, Dec 9, 2022 at 3:05 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 9, 2022 at 7:45 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 7:43 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 4:42 PM Amit Kapila
> > > wro
On Tue, Dec 6, 2022 at 7:32 PM John Naylor wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 11:42 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 7:59 PM John Naylor
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > - Optimize node128 insert.
> > >
> &
On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 4:42 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 12:42 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 10:03 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > +st
On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 10:03 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 7:51 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 1:29 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sunday, De
On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 1:52 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 6:33 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 7:51 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > ---
> > > When max_p
the patch for discussion.
Regards,
[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/tencent_7EB71DA5D7BA00EB0B429DCE45D0452B6406%40qq.com
--
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
fix_slot_xmin_race_condition.patch
Description: Binary data
On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 4:31 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 10:10 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 1:29 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > Right, but the leader will anyway exit at some point either due to an
>
n't need to use pstrdup().
---
- BeginTransactionBlock();
- CommitTransactionCommand(); /* Completes the preceding Begin command. */
+ if (!IsTransactionBlock())
+ {
+ BeginTransactionBlock();
+ CommitTransactionCommand(); /* Completes the preceding
Begin command. */
+ }
Do we need this change? In my environment, 'make check-world' passes
without this change.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 12:55 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 7:31 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 8:46 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, I think this can also help in reducing the tim
On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 1:29 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 9:00 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 1, 2022 at 7:17 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > ---
> > > > if (am_parallel_apply_worker()
On Thu, Dec 1, 2022 at 7:17 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> On Thursday, December 1, 2022 3:58 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 10:51 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2
C_USERSET but probably the developer
option for testing the parallel apply feature would be PGC_SIGHUP.
Also, since streaming changes is not specific to logical replication
but to logical decoding, I'm not sure logical_replication_XXX is a
good name. IMO having force_stream_mode and a different GUC for
testing the parallel apply feature makes sense to me.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
tend it for subscriber-side testing
> then we can introduce new options like client_serialize for the case
> being discussed in the email [1].
Setting logical_replication_mode = 'client_serialize' implies that the
publisher behaves as server_stream? or do you mean we can set like
logical_replication_mode = 'server_stream, client_serialize'?
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
an use 1000L
instead. If we want to use PARALLEL_VACUUM_PROGRESS_TIMEOUT, we need
comments for that:
+#define PARALLEL_VACUUM_PROGRESS_TIMEOUT 1000
---
-WAIT_EVENT_XACT_GROUP_UPDATE
+WAIT_EVENT_XACT_GROUP_UPDATE,
+WAIT_EVENT_PARALLEL_VACUUM_FINISH
} WaitEventIPC;
Enums of WaitEventIPC should be defined in alphabetical order.
---
cfbot fails.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
On Thu, Dec 1, 2022 at 4:00 PM John Naylor wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 11:09 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > I've investigated this issue and have a question about using atomic
> > variables on palloc'ed memory. In non-parallel vacuum cases,
ke:
winfo = pg_launch_parallel_worker()
if (!winfo)
return;
---
+/* Setup replication origin tracking. */
+StartTransactionCommand();
+ReplicationOriginNameForLogicalRep(MySubscription->oid, InvalidOid,
+
originname, sizeof(originname));
+originid = replorigin_by_name(originname, true);
+if (!OidIsValid(originid))
+originid = replorigin_create(originname);
This code looks to allow parallel workers to use different origins in
cases where the origin doesn't exist, but is that okay? Shouldn't we
pass miassing_ok = false in this case?
---
cfbot seems to fails:
https://cirrus-ci.com/task/6264595342426112
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
d only after commit the parallel apply worker would be
> allowed to apply it?
+1
The code coverage report shows that we don't cover the partial
serialization codes. This GUC would improve the code coverage.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 2:10 AM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> On 2022-11-21 17:06:56 +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > Sure. I've attached the v10 patches. 0004 is the pure refactoring
> > patch and 0005 patch introduces the pointer tagging.
>
> This failed on cfbot, with
gt; still intend to replace this code with something faster, but before I do so
> the tests should probably exercise the deletion paths more. Since VACUUM
Indeed, there are some tests for deletion but all of them delete all
keys in the node so we end up deleting the node. I've added tests of
repeating deletion and insertion as well as additional assertions.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 6:47 PM John Naylor
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 9:54 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > [v11]
>
> There is one more thing that just now occurred to me: In expanding the use of
> size classes, that makes rebasing and rewor
On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 5:00 PM John Naylor
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 9:54 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > So it seems that there are two candidates of rt_node structure: (1)
> > all nodes except for node256 are variable-size nodes and use pointer
> &g
> > objections.
>
> And done.
Thank you!
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
/20170505004237.edtahvrwb3uwd5rs%40alap3.anarazel.de
--
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
fix_comment_in_SnapBuildFindSnapshot.patch
Description: Binary data
On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 5:58 PM Maxim Orlov wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, 25 Nov 2022 at 09:40, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 4:43 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>> >
>> > On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 1:48 PM Masahiko Sawada
>> > wrote:
>>
strong opinion here.
> > Let's add tests in a separate commit and let the actual committer to decide
> > what to do, should we?
> >
>
> +1 to not have a test for this as the scenario can already be tested
> by the existing set of tests.
Agreed not to have a test case f
are reset. Regarding the tests, the patch includes a new scenario to
reproduce this issue. However, since the issue can be reproduced also
by the existing scenario (with low probability, though), I'm not sure
it's worth adding the new scenario.
I've not checked if the patch works for version 14 or older yet.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
reset_initial_running_xacts.patch
Description: Binary data
f we store the fanout member only in variable-sized nodes,
rt_node has only count, shift, and chunk, so 4 bytes in total. If so,
the size of node3 (ie. fixed-sized node) is (4 + 3 + (1) + 3*8)? The
size doesn't change but there is 1 byte padding space.
Also, even if we have the node3 a variable-sized node, size class 1
for node3 could be a good choice since it also doesn't need padding
space and could be a good alternative to path compression.
node3 : 5 + 3 + 3*8 = 32 bytes
size class 1 : 5 + 3 + 1*8 = 16 bytes
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 12:24 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 4:39 PM John Naylor
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 12:33 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 1:46 PM John Naylor
&
updates the progress. Then we can have index AM
call this function.
---
+if (!IsParallelWorker())
+ivinfo.report_parallel_progress = true;
+else
+ivinfo.report_parallel_progress = false;
We can do like:
ivinfo.report_parallel_progress = !IsParallelWorker();
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 1:47 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 8:01 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 11:36 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > ...
> > > ---
> > > The streaming parameter has
0 JST [3814552] ERROR: duplicate key value
violates unique constraint "test1_c_idx"
2022-11-17 17:30:23.490 JST [3814552] DETAIL: Key (c)=(1) already exists.
2022-11-17 17:30:23.490 JST [3814552] CONTEXT: processing remote data
for replication origin "pg_16390" duri
On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 4:39 PM John Naylor
wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 12:33 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 1:46 PM John Naylor
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 11:59 AM Masahiko
On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 2:17 PM John Naylor
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 11:46 AM John Naylor
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 11:59 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > > Thanks! Please let me know if there is somethin
On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 1:46 PM John Naylor
wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 11:59 AM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> > Thanks! Please let me know if there is something I can help with.
>
> I didn't get very far because the tests fail on 0004 in rt_verify_node
On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 10:00 PM John Naylor
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 3:44 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > 0004 patch is a new patch supporting a pointer tagging of the node
> > kind. Also, it introduces rt_node_ptr we discussed so that internal
> >
On Sat, Nov 5, 2022 at 6:23 PM John Naylor wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 10:25 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > For parallel heap pruning, multiple workers will insert key-value
> > pairs to the radix tree concurrently. The simplest solution would be a
> > sin
id *arg);
+void *parallel_progress_arg;
} ParallelContext;
With the above change I suggested, I think we won't need to have a
callback function in ParallelContext. Instead, I think we can have
index-AMs call parallel_vacuum_report() if report_parallel_progress is
true.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
On Thu, Nov 3, 2022 at 10:06 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 10:50 AM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 8:42 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 3:04 PM Amit K
On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 12:58 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 8:26 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Nov 6, 2022 at 3:40 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Saturday, November 5, 2022 1:43 PM Amit Kapila
> >
we need it for our purpose, won't subscription id and
> > xid can uniquely identify the tag?
>
> I agree that it could be better to have a new lock tag. Another point is that
> the remote xid and Local xid could be the same in some rare cases, so I think
> we might need to add another identifier to make it unique.
>
> Maybe :
> locktag_field1 : subscription oid
> locktag_field2 : xid(remote or local)
> locktag_field3 : 0(lock for stream block)/1(lock for transaction)
Or I think we can use locktag_field2 for remote xid and locktag_field3
for local xid.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
On Thu, Nov 3, 2022 at 1:59 PM John Naylor wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 12:47 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > I've attached v8 patches. 0001, 0002, and 0003 patches incorporated
> > the comments I got so far. 0004 patch is a DSA support patch for PoC.
served it while working on a fix for commit
> 16b1fe0037.
Thank you for the patch. It looks good to me.
I think we can backpatch it to avoid confusion in future.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 8:42 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 3:04 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 5:52 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Oct 7, 2022 at 2:00 PM Amit Kapila
> > >
On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 11:34 AM shiy.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 7:19 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 8:38 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 6:32 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 8:06 PM John Naylor
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 12:54 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
>
> > I've attached updated PoC patches for discussion and cfbot. From the
> > previous version, I mainly changed the following things:
&g
nto one table, all three (leader) apply workers received START_STREAM
and launched their parallel apply workers. However, two of them
finished without applying any data. I think this behaviour looks
problematic since it wastes workers and rather decreases the apply
performance if the changes are not l
On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 3:04 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 5:52 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 7, 2022 at 2:00 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > About your point that having different partition structures for
> > &g
On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 6:54 AM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2022-10-13 15:57:28 +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > I've attached an updated patch. I've added the common function to
> > start pg_recvlogical and wait for it to become active. Pl
On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 6:57 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 9:40 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > I've attached patches for Change-3 with a test case. Please review them as
> > well.
> >
>
> The patch looks mostly good to me apa
On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 8:09 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 4:47 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 1:08 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 11:58 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > &g
On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 11:58 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 9:53 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 7:49 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 1:45 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > > wrote
On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 11:58 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 9:53 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 7:49 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 1:45 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > > wrote
On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 9:53 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 7:49 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 1:45 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I think because the test case propose
On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 7:56 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 7:05 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 4:08 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > --- a/src/backend/replication/logical/decode.c
> > > +
On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 7:49 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 1:45 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I think because the test case proposed needs all three changes, we can
> > > push the change-1 without a test case and then as a se
On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 1:07 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 6:29 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 4:40 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > IIUC, here you are speaking of three different changes. Cha
On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 4:40 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 11:18 AM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > Please note that to pass the new regression tests, the fix proposed in
> > a related thread[1] is required. Particularly, we need:
On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 4:08 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 11:18 AM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > Summarizing this issue, the assertion check in AssertTXNLsnOrder()
> > fails as reported because the current logical decoding cannot properly
&g
.
>
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2022 at 3:09 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > [fixed benchmarks]
>
> Thanks for that! Now I can show clear results on some aspects in a simple
> way. The attached patches (apply on top of v6) are not intended to be
> incorporated as-is quite yet, bu
On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 1:21 AM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2022-10-11 17:10:52 +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > +# Reset the replication slot statistics.
> > +$node->safe_psql('postgres',
> > + "SELECT pg_stat_reset_replication_slo
using you. I meant that even if we agreed with the
patch I proposed there, your patch is still required to fix the issue.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
o patches. One for adding the
new statistics of the number of vacuumed indexes to
pg_stat_progress_vacuum and another one for adding new statistics view
pg_stat_progress_vacuum_index.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
proposed fix,
the patch proposed by Kuroda-san is required for HEAD, REL14, and
REL15, in order to fix the assertion failure in SnapBuildCommitTxn().
Regards,
[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAD21AoA1gV9pfu8hoXpTQBWH8uEMRg_F_MKM%2BU3Sr0HnyH4AUQ%40mail.gmail.com
--
Masahiko Sa
nt? I mean, suppose we miss the assignment (like now), so
> > that we end up with two TXNs that we think are top-level. And then we
> > get the commit for the actual top-level transaction. AFAICS that won't
> > clean-up the subxact, and we end up with a lingering TXN.
> >
n't create the
# association between top-level transaction and subtransaction yet.
When decoding the
# commit record of the top-level transaction, we must force the
top-level transaction
# to do timetravel since one of its subtransactions is marked as
containing catalog changes.
---
+ elog(DEBUG2, "forced transaction %u to do timetravel due to one of
its subtransaction",
+ xid);
+ needs_timetravel = true;
I think "one of its subtransaction" should be "one of its subtransactions".
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
stats have been removed
>
>
> I wonder how much it'd take to teach isolationtester to handle the replication
> protocol...
I think we can do these tests by using pg_recvlogical in TAP tests.
I've attached a patch to do that.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
PostgreSQL Contributor
On Fri, Oct 7, 2022 at 2:00 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2022 at 8:47 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 9:04 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I think the root reason for this kind of deadlock proble
On Fri, Oct 7, 2022 at 2:29 PM John Naylor wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 1:01 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > In addition to two patches, I've attached the third patch. It's not
> > part of radix tree implementation but introduces a contrib module
> > bench
On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 9:04 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Masahiko Sawada
> > Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2022 4:07 PM
> > To: Hou, Zhijie/侯 志杰
> > Cc: Amit Kapila ; Wang, Wei/王 威
> > ; Peter Smith ; D
27;t need the name in stats entry, pgstat_acquire_replslot() is
no longer necessary?
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
t; >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > > Amit or Andres, are you planning to double-check and perhaps merge
> > > this patch to take care of the inconsistency?
> >
> > I'll run it through CI and then to master unless somebody pipes up in the
> > meantime.
>
> And pushed. Thanks all!
Thanks!
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
ly worker) waits for a lock on c2
held by its parallel apply worker:
* TX-1
BEGIN;
INSERT INTO p SELECT 1 FROM generate_series(1, 1); --- changes are streamed
* TX-2
BEGIN;
TRUNCATE c2; --- wait for a lock on c2
* TX-1
INSERT INTO p SELECT 1 FROM generate_series(1, 1);
COMMIT;
This m
On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 6:40 PM John Naylor wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 1:46 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 12:49 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 12:11 AM John Naylor
> > &
On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 12:49 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 12:11 AM John Naylor
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 11:46 AM John Naylor
> > wrote:
> > > One thing I want to try soon is storing fewer than 16/32 etc e
f
> things telling only if the list of overflowed. So let's stick to
> that.
Why are only subtransaction information in XLOG_RUNNING_XACTS limited?
I think we have other information shown without bounds such as lock
information in XLOG_STANDBY_LOCK and invalidation messages in
XLOG_INVALID
ess var declaration record (src/backend/utils/misc/guc.c)
> The var record is never really used.
Three changes look good to me.
>
> 4. Fix declaration volatile signal var (src/bin/pgbench/pgbench.c)
> Like how to commit 5ac9e86, this is a similar case.
The same is true also for alarm_tri
On Sat, Oct 1, 2022 at 7:53 PM Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
>
> On 29.09.22 06:52, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > While this seems a future-proof idea, I wonder if it might be overkill
> > since we don't need to worry about accumulation of leaked memory in
> > this case. Give
On Mon, Oct 3, 2022 at 2:04 AM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2022-09-16 15:00:31 +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > I've updated the radix tree patch. It's now separated into two patches.
>
> cfbot notices a compiler warning:
> https://cirrus-ci.com/t
On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 3:18 PM John Naylor
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 10:49 AM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
>
> > BTW We need to consider not only aset/slab but also DSA since we
> > allocate dead tuple TIDs on DSM in parallel vacuum cases. FYI DSA uses
> &
On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 1:43 AM Jacob Champion wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 6:14 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > No. Since cluster_name is PGC_POSTMATER, we leak a little postmaster
> > memory only once when starting up. application_name is PGC_USERSET but
> > si
128 bytes */
1280, 1560, 1816, 2048, /* 4 classes separated by ~256 bytes */
2616, 3120, 3640, 4096, /* 4 classes separated by ~512 bytes */
5456, 6552, 7280, 8192 /* 4 classes separated by ~1024 bytes */
};
node256 will be classed as 2616, which is still not good.
Anyway, I'll implement DSA support for radix tree.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 4:44 AM Jacob Champion wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 1:51 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > I think we can fix it by the attached patch but I'd like to discuss
> > whether it's worth fixing it.
>
> Whoops. So every time it's chan
)
by 0x7A5CF3: check_cluster_name (variable.c:1061)
by 0xCAF7CD: call_string_check_hook (guc.c:6365)
by 0xCAA724: InitializeOneGUCOption (guc.c:1439)
by 0xCAA0ED: InitializeGUCOptions (guc.c:1268)
by 0x99B245: PostmasterMain (postmaster.c:691)
by 0x858896: main (main.c:197)
I t
lls, and is the
> whole reason for the recent "pg_lfind_ge" function.
Good point. While keeping the chunks in the small nodes in sorted
order is useful for visiting all keys in sorted order, additional
branches and memmove calls could be slow.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 4:54 PM John Naylor
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 1:01 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 10:39 PM John Naylor
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > bool, buth = and <=. Should be pretty close. Also, i believe
Hi,
I realized that there are some places where we use XLogRecPtr for
variables for replication origin id. The attached patch fixes them to
use RepOriginiId instead.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
_page record, while storing associated page offset
> numbers in a separate area, grouped by their canonical freeze plan
> (which is a normalized version of the information currently stored in
> xl_heap_freeze_tuple).
True. I've not looked at the patch in depth yet but I think
On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 10:39 PM John Naylor
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 12:39 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 10:43 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 1:30 PM John Naylor
> &g
On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 6:33 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 9, 2022 at 6:18 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > Updated the patch accordingly.
> >
>
> I have created two xacts each with savepoints and after your patch,
> the record will show xacts/subxac
On Sat, Sep 10, 2022 at 6:45 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Masahiko Sawada writes:
> > On Fri, Sep 9, 2022 at 11:31 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Recently a number of buildfarm animals have failed at the same
> >> place in src/test/subscription/t/100_bugs.pl [1][2][3][4]:
>
e sending logically-decoded data:
missing contrecord at 0/1D4FFF8
2022-09-09 09:30:19.631 EDT [631b3feb.26e8:2] ERROR: error while
shutting down streaming COPY: ERROR: could not find record while
sending logically-decoded data: missing contrecord at 0/1D4FFF8
It's likely that the commit f6c5edb8abcac04eb3eac6da356e59d399b2bcef
is relevant.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 11:53 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
>
> At Mon, 15 Aug 2022 11:16:56 +0900, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote in
> > Sorry for the late reply.
>
> No worries. Anyway I was in a long (as a Japanese:) vacation.
>
> > On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 4:29 P
then we can
> think of replacing "with" in the above messages with "finished at". I
> see your point related to using "finished at" for PREPARE may not be a
> good idea but I don't have better ideas for the same.
Given that the user normally doesn't need to be aware of the
difference between start LSN and end LSN in the context of using this
feature, I think we can use "with LSN %X/%X".
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
On Sat, Aug 27, 2022 at 7:24 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Sat, Aug 27, 2022 at 1:06 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 27, 2022 at 3:56 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 12:15 PM Amit Kapila
> > > wrote:
>
patch. I have the same conclusion.
Since we took this approach only on the master the back branches are
not affected.
The new test scenario makes sense to me and looks better than the one
I have. Regarding the fix, I think we should use
TransactionIdFollowsOrEquals() instead of
NormalTransactionIdPrecedes():
+
= {num_pages = 0, estimated_count = false, num_index_tuples = 0,
> tuples_removed = 0, pages_newly_deleted = 0, pages_deleted = 1,
> pages_free = 0}}
The status = 11 is invalid value. Probably because indstats was not
initialized to 0 as I mentioned.
Justin, if it's reproducible i
On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 11:06 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 10:34 PM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> >
> > Immediately after upgrading an internal instance, a loop around "vacuum" did
> > this:
>
> Thank you for the report!
>
;m not convinced yet but it could be a culprit that we missed doing
memset(0) for the shared array of PVIndStats in
parallel_vacuum_init(). This shared array was introduced in PG15.
[1]
https://github.com/postgres/postgres/blob/REL_15_STABLE/src/backend/access/heap/vacuumlazy.c#L2679
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/
701 - 800 of 2260 matches
Mail list logo
