On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 6:57 PM, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 8:37 PM, Haribabu Kommi
> wrote:
> > After I tune the GUC to go with sequence scan, still I am not getting the
> > error
> > in the session-2 for update
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 8:37 PM, Haribabu Kommi
wrote:
> After I tune the GUC to go with sequence scan, still I am not getting the
> error
> in the session-2 for update operation like it used to generate an error for
> parallel
> sequential scan, and also it even takes
On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 4:13 PM, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 1:47 PM, Haribabu Kommi
> wrote:
> > During testing of this patch, I found some behavior difference
> > with the support of parallel query, while
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 1:47 PM, Haribabu Kommi
wrote:
> During testing of this patch, I found some behavior difference
> with the support of parallel query, while experimenting with the provided
> test case in the patch.
>
> But I tested the V6 patch, and I don't think
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Thomas Munro <
thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 5:11 PM, Thomas Munro
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Thomas Munro
> > wrote:
> >> [ssi-parallel-v5.patch]
On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 5:11 PM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Thomas Munro
> wrote:
>> [ssi-parallel-v5.patch]
>
> Rebased.
Rebased again.
--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> [ssi-parallel-v5.patch]
Rebased.
--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com
ssi-parallel-v6.patch
Description: Binary data
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 8:25 AM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> ... but considering that these data structures may
> finish up being redesigned as part of the GSoC project[1], it may be
> best to wait and see where that goes before doing anything. I'll
> follow developments
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 8:19 PM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I don't think I know enough about the serializable code to review
>> this, or at least not quickly, but it seems very cool if it
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 6:41 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2017-03-11 15:19:23 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
>> Here is a rebased patch.
>
> It seems that this patch is still undergoing development, review and
> performance evaluation. Therefore it seems like it'd be a
Hi,
On 2017-03-11 15:19:23 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> Here is a rebased patch.
It seems that this patch is still undergoing development, review and
performance evaluation. Therefore it seems like it'd be a bad idea to
try to get this into v10. Any arguments against moving this to the next
On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> I don't think I know enough about the serializable code to review
> this, or at least not quickly, but it seems very cool if it works.
> Have you checked what effect it has on shared memory consumption?
I'm not sure how
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 12:55 AM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Thomas Munro
> wrote:
>> Specifically, DeleteChildTargetLocks() assumes it can walk
>> MySerializableXact->predicateLocks and throw away locks
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> Specifically, DeleteChildTargetLocks() assumes it can walk
> MySerializableXact->predicateLocks and throw away locks that are
> covered by a new lock (ie throw away tuple locks because a covering
> page lock has
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 2:58 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 4:51 PM, Thomas Munro
> wrote:
>> Currently we don't generate parallel plans in SERIALIZABLE. What
>> problems need to be solved to be able to do that? I'm
On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 4:51 PM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> Currently we don't generate parallel plans in SERIALIZABLE. What
> problems need to be solved to be able to do that? I'm probably
> steamrolling over a ton of subtleties and assumptions here, but it
> occurred
On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 1:51 PM, Thomas Munro
> wrote:
>> Currently we don't generate parallel plans in SERIALIZABLE. What
>> problems need to be solved to be able to do that?
>
> FWIW,
On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> Need to audit predicate.c for cases where
> MySerializableXact might be modified without suitable locking,
The only thing I see along those lines is that
CheckForSerializableConflictOut() and
On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 1:51 PM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> Currently we don't generate parallel plans in SERIALIZABLE. What
> problems need to be solved to be able to do that?
FWIW, parallel CREATE INDEX works at SERIALIZABLE isolation level by
specially asking the
Hi hackers,
Currently we don't generate parallel plans in SERIALIZABLE. What
problems need to be solved to be able to do that? I'm probably
steamrolling over a ton of subtleties and assumptions here, but it
occurred to me that a first step might be something like this:
1. Hand the leader's
20 matches
Mail list logo