Hi All,
We saw OOM in a system where WAL sender consumed Gigabttes of memory
which was never released. Upon investigation, we found out that there
were many ReorderBufferToastHash memory contexts linked to
ReorderBuffer context, together consuming gigs of memory. They were
running INSERT ... ON CON
On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 10:34 PM Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> Hi All,
> We saw OOM in a system where WAL sender consumed Gigabttes of memory
> which was never released. Upon investigation, we found out that there
> were many ReorderBufferToastHash memory contexts linked to
> ReorderBuffer context, toge
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 11:04 AM Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
>
> Hi All,
> We saw OOM in a system where WAL sender consumed Gigabttes of memory
> which was never released. Upon investigation, we found out that there
> were many ReorderBufferToastHash memory contexts linked to
> ReorderBuffer context, to
On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 8:27 AM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 10:34 PM Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
> > Hi All,
> > We saw OOM in a system where WAL sender consumed Gigabttes of memory
> > which was never released. Upon investigation, we found out that there
> > were many ReorderB
On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 9:02 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 11:04 AM Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi All,
> > We saw OOM in a system where WAL sender consumed Gigabttes of memory
> > which was never released. Upon investigation, we found out that there
> > were many ReorderB
On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 9:03 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 11:04 AM Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi All,
> > We saw OOM in a system where WAL sender consumed Gigabttes of memory
> > which was never released. Upon investigation, we found out that there
> > were many ReorderB
On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 9:26 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 9:02 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 11:04 AM Ashutosh Bapat
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi All,
> > > We saw OOM in a system where WAL sender consumed Gigabttes of memory
> > > which was never releas
On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 9:40 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 9:26 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Can we consider the possibility to destroy the toast_hash in
> > > ReorderBufferCleanupTXN/ReorderBufferTruncateTXN? It will delay the
> > > clean up of memory till the end of
On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 9:47 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 9:40 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> True, but if you do this clean-up in ReorderBufferCleanupTXN then you
> don't need to take care at separate places. Also, toast_hash is stored
> in txn so it appears natural to clean it u
On 5/27/21 6:36 AM, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 9:47 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 9:40 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>>
>> True, but if you do this clean-up in ReorderBufferCleanupTXN then you
>> don't need to take care at separate places. Also, toast_hash is st
On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 5:16 PM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
> On 5/27/21 6:36 AM, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 9:47 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 9:40 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >>
> >> True, but if you do this clean-up in ReorderBufferCleanupTXN then you
> >> do
On 5/28/21 2:17 PM, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 5:16 PM Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
>> On 5/27/21 6:36 AM, Dilip Kumar wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 9:47 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 9:40 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
True, but if you do this clean-up
On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 6:01 PM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
>
> On 5/28/21 2:17 PM, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 5:16 PM Tomas Vondra
> > wrote:
> >> On 5/27/21 6:36 AM, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >>> On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 9:47 AM Amit Kapila
> >>> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 27, 202
On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 5:16 PM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
>
> I wonder if there's a way to free the TOASTed data earlier, instead of
> waiting until the end of the transaction (as this patch does).
>
IIUC we are anyway freeing the toasted data at the next
insert/update/delete. We can try to free at oth
On 5/29/21 6:29 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 5:16 PM Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
>>
>> I wonder if there's a way to free the TOASTed data earlier, instead of
>> waiting until the end of the transaction (as this patch does).
>>
>
> IIUC we are anyway freeing the toasted data at the n
On Sat, May 29, 2021 at 5:45 PM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
>
> On 5/29/21 6:29 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 5:16 PM Tomas Vondra
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> I wonder if there's a way to free the TOASTed data earlier, instead of
> >> waiting until the end of the transaction (as this patch
On Mon, 31 May 2021 at 8:21 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Sat, May 29, 2021 at 5:45 PM Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
> >
> > On 5/29/21 6:29 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 5:16 PM Tomas Vondra
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I wonder if there's a way to free the TOASTed data earlier, ins
On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 8:50 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Mon, 31 May 2021 at 8:21 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>
>> Okay, I think it would be better if we can test this once for the
>> streaming case as well. Dilip, would you like to do that and send the
>> updated patch as per one of the comments by
On Mon, 31 May 2021 at 4:29 PM, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 8:50 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 31 May 2021 at 8:21 AM, Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Okay, I think it would be better if we can test this once for the
> >> streaming case as well. Dilip, would you like to
On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 6:32 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Mon, 31 May 2021 at 4:29 PM, Dilip Kumar wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 8:50 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>> >
>> > On Mon, 31 May 2021 at 8:21 AM, Amit Kapila
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Okay, I think it would be better if we can test this
On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 8:12 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 6:32 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > I missed to do the test for streaming. I will to that tomorrow and reply
> > back.
>
> For streaming transactions this issue is not there. Because this
> problem will only occur if
On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 9:53 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 8:12 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 6:32 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > >
> > > I missed to do the test for streaming. I will to that tomorrow and reply
> > > back.
> >
> > For streaming transaction
On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 9:59 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 9:53 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 8:12 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 6:32 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I missed to do the test for streaming. I will to tha
On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 10:21 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 9:59 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 9:53 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 8:12 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 6:32 PM Dilip Kumar
> > > >
On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 11:00 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 10:21 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 9:59 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 9:53 AM Amit Kapila
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 8:12 PM Dilip Kumar
On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 11:44 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 11:00 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 10:21 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Right, I think you can remove the change related to stream xact and
> > > probably write some comments on why we
On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 12:25 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > IMHO, as I stated earlier one way to fix this problem is that we add
> > the spec abort operation (DELETE + XLH_DELETE_IS_SUPER flag) to the
> > queue, maybe with action name
> > "REORDER_BUFFER_CHANGE_INTERNAL_SPEC_ABORT" and as part of
On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 5:22 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 12:25 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> > >
> > > IMHO, as I stated earlier one way to fix this problem is that we add
> > > the spec abort operation (DELETE + XLH_DELETE_IS_SUPER flag) to the
> > > queue, maybe with action name
On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 8:01 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
>
> The attached patch fixes by queuing the spec abort change and cleaning
> up the toast hash on spec abort. Currently, in this patch I am
> queuing up all the spec abort changes, but as an optimization we can
> avoid
> queuing the spec abort f
On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 5:23 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 12:25 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> > >
> > > IMHO, as I stated earlier one way to fix this problem is that we add
> > > the spec abort operation (DELETE + XLH_DELETE_IS_SUPER flag) to the
> > > queue, maybe with action name
On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 11:25 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 5:23 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 12:25 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > IMHO, as I stated earlier one way to fix this problem is that we add
> > > > the spec abort operation (DELETE +
On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 11:38 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 11:25 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 5:23 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 12:25 PM Amit Kapila
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > IMHO, as I stated earlier one way t
On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 11:52 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 11:38 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 11:25 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > I think the same relation case might not create a problem because it
> > > won't find the entry for it in the toast_has
On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 at 8:30 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 11:52 AM Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 11:38 AM Dilip Kumar
> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 11:25 AM Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I think the same relation case might not create
On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 8:46 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 at 8:30 AM, Amit Kapila
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 11:52 AM Amit Kapila
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 11:38 AM Dilip Kumar
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 11:25 AM Amit Kapila
>> wrote
On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 6:04 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> I have fixed all pending review comments and also added a test case which is
> working fine.
>
Few observations and questions on testcase:
1.
+step "s1_lock_s2" { SELECT pg_advisory_lock(2); }
+step "s1_lock_s3" { SELECT pg_advisory_lock(2);
On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 6:34 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 6:04 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > I have fixed all pending review comments and also added a test case
> which is working fine.
> >
>
> Few observations and questions on testcase:
> 1.
> +step "s1_lock_s2" { SELECT pg_adv
On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 6:45 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>>
>>
>> 2. In the test, there seems to be an assumption that we can unlock s2
>> and s3 one after another, and then both will start waiting on s-1 but
>> isn't it possible that before s2 start waiting on s1, s3 completes its
>> insertion and then
On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 5:16 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> Based on the off list discussion, I have modified the test based on
> the idea showed in
> "isolation/specs/insert-conflict-specconflict.spec", other open point
> we had about the race condition that how to ensure that when we unlock
> any sess
On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 11:03 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 5:16 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > Based on the off list discussion, I have modified the test based on
> > the idea showed in
> > "isolation/specs/insert-conflict-specconflict.spec", other open point
> > we had about the
On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 4:12 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 11:03 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 5:16 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>> >
>> > Based on the off list discussion, I have modified the test based on
>> > the idea showed in
>> > "isolation/specs/insert-conf
On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 4:22 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 4:12 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >> Few comments:
> >> 1. The test has a lot of similarities and test duplication with what
> >> we are doing in insert-conflict-specconflict.spec. Can we move it to
> >> insert-conflict-specco
May I suggest to use a different name in the blurt_and_lock_123()
function, so that it doesn't conflict with the one in
insert-conflict-specconflict? Thanks
--
Álvaro Herrera39°49'30"S 73°17'W
On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 8:59 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> May I suggest to use a different name in the blurt_and_lock_123()
> function, so that it doesn't conflict with the one in
> insert-conflict-specconflict? Thanks
Renamed to blurt_and_lock(), is that fine?
I haved fixed other comments and a
On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 2:12 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 8:59 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >
> > May I suggest to use a different name in the blurt_and_lock_123()
> > function, so that it doesn't conflict with the one in
> > insert-conflict-specconflict? Thanks
>
> Renamed to
On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 11:37 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 7:15 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > Please find the patch for HEAD attached. Can you please prepare the
> > patch for back-branches by doing all the changes I have done in the
> > patch for HEAD?
>
> Done
>
Than
On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 7:23 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 11:37 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 7:15 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> >
> > >
> > > Please find the patch for HEAD attached. Can you please prepare the
> > > patch for back-branches by doing a
On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 8:34 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> I think the test in this patch is quite similar to what Noah has
> pointed in the nearby thread [1] to be failing at some intervals. Can
> you also please once verify the same and if we can expect similar
> failures here then we might want to
On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 9:44 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 8:34 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > I think the test in this patch is quite similar to what Noah has
> > pointed in the nearby thread [1] to be failing at some intervals. Can
> > you also please once verify the same and
On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 12:06 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 9:44 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 8:34 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > I think the test in this patch is quite similar to what Noah has
> > > pointed in the nearby thread [1] to be failing
Amit Kapila writes:
> Pushed!
skink reports that this has valgrind issues:
https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=skink&dt=2021-06-15%2020%3A49%3A26
2021-06-16 01:20:13.344 UTC [2198271][4/0:0] LOG: received replication
command: IDENTIFY_SYSTEM
2021-06-16 01:20:13.384 UTC [21
On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 8:18 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Amit Kapila writes:
> > Pushed!
>
> skink reports that this has valgrind issues:
>
> https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=skink&dt=2021-06-15%2020%3A49%3A26
>
The problem happens at line:
rel_sync_cache_relation_cb()
{
..
if
On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 12:56 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 8:18 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > Amit Kapila writes:
> > > Pushed!
> >
> > skink reports that this has valgrind issues:
> >
> > https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=skink&dt=2021-06-15%2020%3A49%3A26
On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 10:39 AM Amit Langote wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 12:56 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 8:18 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> > >
> > > Amit Kapila writes:
> > > > Pushed!
> > >
> > > skink reports that this has valgrind issues:
> > >
> > > https://buildfarm
On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 3:42 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 10:39 AM Amit Langote wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 12:56 PM Amit Kapila
> > wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 8:18 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Amit Kapila writes:
> > > > > Pushed!
> > > >
> > > >
On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 12:52 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> Oh I missed that the problem report is for the PG13 branch.
>
> How about the attached patch then?
>
Looks good, one minor comment, how about making the below comment,
same as on the head?
- if (!found || !entry->replicate_valid)
+ if (!foun
Hi Dilip,
On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 4:45 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 12:52 PM Amit Langote wrote:
>
> > Oh I missed that the problem report is for the PG13 branch.
> >
> > How about the attached patch then?
> >
> Looks good,
Thanks for checking.
> one minor comment, how about
On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 1:35 PM Amit Langote wrote:
>
> Hi Dilip,
>
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 4:45 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 12:52 PM Amit Langote
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Oh I missed that the problem report is for the PG13 branch.
> > >
> > > How about the attached patch th
On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 2:55 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> Your patch looks good to me as well. I would like to retain the
> comment as it is from master for now. I'll do some testing and push it
> tomorrow unless there are additional comments.
>
Pushed!
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
Hi,
On 6/18/21 5:50 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 2:55 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>>
>> Your patch looks good to me as well. I would like to retain the
>> comment as it is from master for now. I'll do some testing and push it
>> tomorrow unless there are additional comments.
>>
>
>
Tomas Vondra writes:
> While rebasing a patch broken by 4daa140a2f5, I noticed that the patch
> does this:
> @@ -63,6 +63,7 @@ enum ReorderBufferChangeType
> REORDER_BUFFER_CHANGE_INTERNAL_TUPLECID,
> REORDER_BUFFER_CHANGE_INTERNAL_SPEC_INSERT,
> REORDER_BUFFER_CHANGE_INTE
On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 8:21 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Tomas Vondra writes:
> > While rebasing a patch broken by 4daa140a2f5, I noticed that the patch
> > does this:
>
> > @@ -63,6 +63,7 @@ enum ReorderBufferChangeType
> > REORDER_BUFFER_CHANGE_INTERNAL_TUPLECID,
> > REORDER_BUFFER_C
Amit Kapila writes:
>> I think it's OK in HEAD. I agree we shouldn't do it like that
>> in the back branches.
> Okay, I'll change this in back branches and HEAD to keep the code
> consistent, or do you think it is better to retain the order in HEAD
> as it is and just change it for back-branches
On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 12:25:15AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Amit Kapila writes:
>> Okay, I'll change this in back branches and HEAD to keep the code
>> consistent, or do you think it is better to retain the order in HEAD
>> as it is and just change it for back-branches?
>
> As I said, I'd keep th
On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 11:04 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 12:25:15AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Amit Kapila writes:
> >> Okay, I'll change this in back branches and HEAD to keep the code
> >> consistent, or do you think it is better to retain the order in HEAD
> >> as it
65 matches
Mail list logo
