On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 4:57 PM Michail Nikolaev
wrote:
> I remember you had an idea about using the LP_REDIRECT bit in btree
> indexes as some kind of “recently dead” flag (1).
> Is this idea still in progress? Maybe an additional bit could provide
> a space for a better solution.
I think that
Hello, David.
Thanks for your review!
> As a specific recommendation here - submit patches with a complete commit
> message.
> Tweak it for each new version so that any prior discussion that informed the
> general design of
> the patch is reflected in the commit message.
Yes, agreed. Applied
Hello, Peter.
> The simple answer is: I don't know. I could probably come up with a
> better answer than that, but it would take real effort, and time.
I remember you had an idea about using the LP_REDIRECT bit in btree
indexes as some kind of “recently dead” flag (1).
Is this idea still in
On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 6:52 AM Michail Nikolaev
wrote:
> Hello, Andres.
>
> > Fails to apply at the moment: http://cfbot.cputube.org/patch_37_2947.log
>
> Thanks for notifying me. BTW, some kind of automatic email in case of
> status change could be very helpful.
>
> > Marked as waiting for
On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 5:20 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 4:55 AM Michail Nikolaev
> wrote:
>
> I think that you could do a better job of explaining and promoting the
> problem that you're trying to solve here. Emphasis on the problem, not
> so much the solution.
As a
On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 4:55 AM Michail Nikolaev
wrote:
> > Overall, I think that this patch has serious design flaws, and that
> > this issue is really just a symptom of a bigger problem.
>
> Could you please advise me on something? The ways I see:
> * give up :)
I would never tell anybody to
UPD:
> I was thinking it is safe to have additional hint bits
> on primary, but it seems like no.
Oh, sorry for the mistake, it is about standby of course.
> BTW I am wondering if it is possible
> to achieve the same situation by pg_rewind and standby promotion…
Looks like it is impossible,
Hello, Peter.
Thanks for your review!
> I doubt that the patch's use of pg_memory_barrier() in places like
> _bt_killitems() is correct. There is no way to know for sure if this
> novel new lockless algorithm is correct or not, since it isn't
> explained anywhere.
The memory barrier is used
Hello, Greg.
> I'm seeing a recovery test failure. Not sure if this represents an
> actual bug or just a test that needs to be adjusted for the new
> behaviour.
Thanks for notifying me. It is a failure of a test added in the patch.
It is a little hard to make it stable (because it depends on
On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 1:23 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> I doubt that the patch's use of pg_memory_barrier() in places like
> _bt_killitems() is correct.
I also doubt that posting list splits are handled correctly.
If there is an LP_DEAD bit set on a posting list on the primary, and
we need to
On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 12:40 PM Greg Stark wrote:
> I'm seeing a recovery test failure. Not sure if this represents an
> actual bug or just a test that needs to be adjusted for the new
> behaviour.
>
> https://cirrus-ci.com/task/5711008294502400
I doubt that the patch's use of
On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 at 09:52, Michail Nikolaev
wrote:
>
> Thanks for notifying me. BTW, some kind of automatic email in case of
> status change could be very helpful.
I agree but realize the cfbot is quite new and I guess the priority is
to work out any kinks before spamming people with false
Hello, Andres.
> Fails to apply at the moment: http://cfbot.cputube.org/patch_37_2947.log
Thanks for notifying me. BTW, some kind of automatic email in case of
status change could be very helpful.
> Marked as waiting for author.
New version is attached, build is passing
Hi,
On 2022-01-25 19:21:01 +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> I rebased the pathset in attached v9. Please double check that I didn't miss
> anything in the rebase.
Fails to apply at the moment: http://cfbot.cputube.org/patch_37_2947.log
Marked as waiting for author.
- Andres
Hello, Julien.
> I rebased the pathset in attached v9. Please double check that I didn't miss
> anything in the rebase.
Thanks a lot for your help.
> I will let you mark the patch as Ready for Committer once you validate that
> the
> rebase was ok.
Yes, rebase looks good.
Best regards,
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 07:21:01PM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> >
> > I'll move entry back to "Ready for Committer" once it passes tests.
>
> It looks like you didn't fetch the latest upstream commits in a while as this
> version is still conflicting with 7a5f6b474 (Make logical decoding
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 10:33:43AM +0300, Michail Nikolaev wrote:
>
> Thanks for your attention.
> After some investigation, I think I have found the problem. It is
> caused by XLOG_RUNNING_XACTS at an undetermined moment (some test
> parts rely on it).
>
> Now test waits for
Hello, Justin.
Thanks for your attention.
After some investigation, I think I have found the problem. It is
caused by XLOG_RUNNING_XACTS at an undetermined moment (some test
parts rely on it).
Now test waits for XLOG_RUNNING_XACTS to happen (maximum is 15s) and
proceed forward.
I'll move entry
On Sat, Jan 15, 2022 at 08:39:14PM +0300, Michail Nikolaev wrote:
> Hello, Junien.
>
> Thanks for your attention.
>
> > The cfbot reports that this patch is currently failing at least on
> > Linux and Windows, e.g. https://cirrus-ci.com/task/6532060239101952.
>
> Fixed. It was the issue with
Hello, Junien.
Thanks for your attention.
> The cfbot reports that this patch is currently failing at least on
> Linux and Windows, e.g. https://cirrus-ci.com/task/6532060239101952.
Fixed. It was the issue with the test - hangs on Windows because of
psql + spurious vacuum sometimes.
> I'm
Hi,
On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 3:06 AM Michail Nikolaev
wrote:
>
> > Attached is a proposal for a minor addition that would make sense to me, add
> > it if you think it's appropriate.
>
> Added. Also, I updated the documentation a little.
>
> > I have changed approach, so it is better to start from
Hello.
> Attached is a proposal for a minor addition that would make sense to me, add
> it if you think it's appropriate.
Added. Also, I updated the documentation a little.
> I have changed approach, so it is better to start from this email:
Oops, I was thinking the comments feature in the
Woo-hoo :)
> Attached is a proposal for a minor addition that would make sense to me, add
> it if you think it's appropriate.
Yes, I'll add to the patch.
> I think I've said enough, changing the status to "ready for committer" :-)
Thanks a lot for your help and attention!
Best regards,
I have changed approach, so it is better to start from this email:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CANtu0ohHu1r1xQfTzEJuxeaOMYncG7xRxUQWdH%3DcMXZSf%2Bnzvg%40mail.gmail.com#4c81a4d623d8152f5e8889e97e750eec
Michail Nikolaev wrote:
> > I understand that the RR snapshot is used to check the MVCC behaviour,
> > however
> > this comment seems to indicate that the RR snapshot should also prevent the
> > standb from setting the hint bits.
> > # Make sure previous queries not set the hints on standby
Hello, Antonin.
Thanks for pushing it forward.
> I understand that the RR snapshot is used to check the MVCC behaviour, however
> this comment seems to indicate that the RR snapshot should also prevent the
> standb from setting the hint bits.
> # Make sure previous queries not set the hints on
Michail Nikolaev wrote:
> > * Is the purpose of the repeatable read (RR) snapshot to test that
> > heap_hot_search_buffer() does not set deadness->all_dead if some
> > transaction
> > can still see a tuple of the chain?
>
> The main purpose is to test xactStartedInRecovery logic after the
Hello, Antonin.
> I'm trying to continue the review, sorry for the delay. Following are a few
> question about the code:
Thanks for the review :) And sorry for the delay too :)
> * Does the masking need to happen in the AM code, e.g. _bt_killitems()?
> I'd expect that the RmgrData.rm_fpi_mask
Michail Nikolaev wrote:
> Hello.
>
> Added a check for standby promotion with the long transaction to the
> test (code and docs are unchanged).
I'm trying to continue the review, sorry for the delay. Following are a few
question about the code:
* Does the masking need to happen in the AM
Hello.
Added a check for standby promotion with the long transaction to the
test (code and docs are unchanged).
Thanks,
Michail.
From c5e1053805c537b50b0922151bcf127754500adb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Michail Nikolaev
Date: Fri, 14 May 2021 00:32:30 +0300
Subject: [PATCH v3 3/4] test
---
Hello,
Antonin.
> My review that started in [1] continues here.
Thanks a lot for the review.
> (Please note that code.patch does not apply to the current master branch.)
Rebased.
> Especially for the problem discussed in [1] it should be
> explained what would happen if kill_prior_tuple_min_lsn
Michail Nikolaev wrote:
> After some correspondence with Peter Geoghegan (1) and his ideas, I
> have reworked the patch a lot and now it is much more simple with even
> better performance (no new WAL or conflict resolution, hot standby
> feedback is unrelated).
My review that started in [1]
Michail Nikolaev wrote:
> > Sorry, I missed the fact that your example can be executed inside BEGIN -
> > END
> > block, in which case minRecoveryPoint won't advance after each command.
>
> No, the block is not executed as a single transaction, all commands
> are separated transactions (see
Hello,
Antonin.
> Sorry, I missed the fact that your example can be executed inside BEGIN - END
> block, in which case minRecoveryPoint won't advance after each command.
No, the block is not executed as a single transaction, all commands
are separated transactions (see below)
> Actually I think
Michail Nikolaev wrote:
> Hello, Antonin.
>
> > I'm trying to review the patch, but not sure if I understand this problem,
> > please see my comment below.
>
> Thanks a lot for your attention. It is strongly recommended to look at
> version N3 (1) because it is a much more elegant, easy, and
Hello, Antonin.
> I'm trying to review the patch, but not sure if I understand this problem,
> please see my comment below.
Thanks a lot for your attention. It is strongly recommended to look at
version N3 (1) because it is a much more elegant, easy, and reliable
solution :) But the
I'm trying to review the patch, but not sure if I understand this problem,
please see my comment below.
Michail Nikolaev wrote:
> Oh, I just realized that it seems like I was too naive to allow
> standby to set LP_DEAD bits this way.
> There is a possible consistency problem in the case of low
Hello, hackers.
I think I was able to fix the issue related to minRecoveryPoint and crash
recovery. To make sure standby will be consistent after crash recovery, we
need to take the current value of minRecoveryPoint into account while
setting LP_DEAD hints (almost the same way as it is done for
Hello, everyone.
Oh, I just realized that it seems like I was too naive to allow
standby to set LP_DEAD bits this way.
There is a possible consistency problem in the case of low
minRecoveryPoint value (because hint bits do not move PageLSN
forward).
Something like this:
LSN=10 STANDBY INSERTS
Hello, hackers.
[ABSTRACT]
Execution of queries to hot standby is one of the most popular ways to
scale application workload. Most of the modern Postgres installations
have two standby nodes for high-availability support. So, utilization
of replica's CPU seems to be a reasonable idea.
At the
40 matches
Mail list logo
