On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 1:21 PM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 01:13:51PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 1:05 PM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 12:16:11PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> > > > Curiously, Justin mentioned upthread that the
On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 01:13:51PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 1:05 PM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 12:16:11PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> > > Curiously, Justin mentioned upthread that the crash occurred during
> > > BIND of a prepared query, so it
On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 1:05 PM Justin Pryzby wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 12:16:11PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> > Curiously, Justin mentioned upthread that the crash occurred during
> > BIND of a prepared query, so it better had been that a custom plan was
> > being executed, because a
On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 12:16:11PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> Curiously, Justin mentioned upthread that the crash occurred during
> BIND of a prepared query, so it better had been that a custom plan was
> being executed, because a generic one based on fewer partitions would
> be thrown away due
On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 12:16:11PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> Curiously, Justin mentioned upthread that the crash occurred during
> BIND of a prepared query, so it better had been that a custom plan was
> being executed,
I'm looking at how to check that ... can you give a hint ?
--
Justin
Amit Langote writes:
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 9:32 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>> ... Amit's recipe for reproducing the bug works because there are
>> other relation lock acquisitions (and hence AcceptInvalidationMessages
>> calls) later in planning than where he asked us to wait. So this
>>
On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 9:32 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Andy Fan writes:
> > Attached is the v2 patch.
Thanks Andy and Tom for this.
> Forgot to mention that I'd envisioned adding this as a src/test/modules/
> module; contrib/ is for things that we intend to expose to users, which
> I think this
Andy Fan writes:
> I am not sure if we need to limit the scope to "between parsing and
> execution",
Yeah, there might be reason to add similar functionality in other
places later. I'm not sure where yet --- but that idea does make
me slightly unhappy with the "delay_execution" moniker. I
On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 8:32 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Andy Fan writes:
> > Attached is the v2 patch.
>
> Forgot to mention that I'd envisioned adding this as a src/test/modules/
> module; contrib/ is for things that we intend to expose to users, which
> I think this isn't.
>
> I played around with
Andy Fan writes:
> Attached is the v2 patch.
Forgot to mention that I'd envisioned adding this as a src/test/modules/
module; contrib/ is for things that we intend to expose to users, which
I think this isn't.
I played around with this and got the isolation test I'd experimented
with yesterday
On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 10:42 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Andy Fan writes:
> > On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 12:02 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> >> See my straw-man proposal downthread.
>
> > Thanks for your explanation, I checked it again and it looks a very clean
> > method. The attached is a draft patch based on
Andy Fan writes:
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 12:02 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>> See my straw-man proposal downthread.
> Thanks for your explanation, I checked it again and it looks a very clean
> method. The attached is a draft patch based on my understanding. Hope
> I didn't misunderstand you..
Ah,
On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 12:02 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Andy Fan writes:
> > On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 2:22 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> >> In the longer term, it's annoying that we have no test methodology
> >> for this other than "manually set a breakpoint here".
>
> > One of the methods I see is we can just
Andy Fan writes:
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 2:22 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>> In the longer term, it's annoying that we have no test methodology
>> for this other than "manually set a breakpoint here".
> One of the methods I see is we can just add some GUC variable for some
> action injection.
On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 2:22 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 1:30 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I'm strongly tempted to convert the trailing Assert to an actual
> >> test-and-elog, too, but didn't do so here.
>
> > I was thinking about that, too. +1 for taking that
On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 2:30 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Amit Langote writes:
> > The attached patch should fix that.
>
> I don't like this patch at all though; I do not think it is being nearly
> careful enough to ensure that it's matched the surviving relation OIDs
> correctly. In particular it
On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 4:19 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> After thinking about it for a little bit, I'm envisioning a test module
> that can be loaded into a session, and then it gets into the planner_hook,
> and what it does is after each planner execution, take and release an
> advisory lock with some
Robert Haas writes:
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 2:22 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>> In the longer term, it's annoying that we have no test methodology
>> for this other than "manually set a breakpoint here". If we're going
>> to allow plan-relevant DDL changes to happen with less than full table
>> lock, I
On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 2:22 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> In the longer term, it's annoying that we have no test methodology
> for this other than "manually set a breakpoint here". If we're going
> to allow plan-relevant DDL changes to happen with less than full table
> lock, I think we need to improve
Robert Haas writes:
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 1:30 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm strongly tempted to convert the trailing Assert to an actual
>> test-and-elog, too, but didn't do so here.
> I was thinking about that, too. +1 for taking that step.
Will do.
In the longer term, it's annoying that we
On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 1:30 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> I don't like this patch at all though; I do not think it is being nearly
> careful enough to ensure that it's matched the surviving relation OIDs
> correctly. In particular it blithely assumes that a zero in relid_map
> *must* match the
Amit Langote writes:
> The crash reported here is in the other case where the concurrently
> added partitions cause the execution-time PartitionDesc to have more
> partitions than the one that PartitionedRelPruneInfo is based on.
> I was able to reproduce such a crash as follows:
Yeah, I can
On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 10:04 AM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 09:53:44AM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 9:52 AM Amit Langote wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 9:32 AM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 09:26:20AM +0900, Amit Langote
On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 09:53:44AM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 9:52 AM Amit Langote wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 9:32 AM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 09:26:20AM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 12:11 AM Justin Pryzby
>
On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 9:52 AM Amit Langote wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 9:32 AM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 09:26:20AM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 12:11 AM Justin Pryzby
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 08:12:10PM +0900,
On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 12:11 PM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> (gdb) p *pinfo->relid_map@414
> (gdb) p *partdesc->oids@415
Whoa, I didn't know about using @ in gdb to print multiple elements. Wild!
Anyway, these two arrays differ in that the latter array has 22653702
inserted at the beginning and
On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 08:12:10PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> It may be this commit that went into PG 12 that is causing the problem:
Thanks for digging into this.
> to account for partitions that were pruned by the planner for which we
> decided to put 0 into relid_map, but it only considered
On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 1:11 AM Justin Pryzby wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 03, 2020 at 11:41:37AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 2:11 PM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > > Based on commit logs, I suspect this may be an "older bug", specifically
> > > maybe
> > > with:
> > >
> > > |commit
On Mon, Aug 03, 2020 at 11:41:37AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 2:11 PM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > Based on commit logs, I suspect this may be an "older bug", specifically
> > maybe
> > with:
> >
> > |commit 898e5e3290a72d288923260143930fb32036c00c
> > |Author: Robert Haas
>
On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 2:11 PM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> Based on commit logs, I suspect this may be an "older bug", specifically maybe
> with:
>
> |commit 898e5e3290a72d288923260143930fb32036c00c
> |Author: Robert Haas
> |Date: Thu Mar 7 11:13:12 2019 -0500
> |
> |Allow ATTACH PARTITION with
Core was generated by `postgres: telsasoft ts [local] BIND
'.
(gdb) bt
#0 0x7f0951303387 in raise () from /lib64/libc.so.6
#1 0x7f0951304a78 in abort () from /lib64/libc.so.6
#2 0x00921005 in ExceptionalCondition
31 matches
Mail list logo
