On 20/09/17 05:53, Tom Lane wrote:
> Craig Ringer writes:
>> On 19 September 2017 at 18:04, Petr Jelinek
>> wrote:
>>> If you are asking why they are not identified by the
>>> BackgroundWorkerHandle, then it's because it's private struct and
Craig Ringer wrote:
> IIRC when we did something similar in pglogical we ran into problems with
> (a) inability to handle an ERROR in a bgworker without exiting and being
> restarted by the postmaster;
I don't understand why this would be; surely you can just setup another
longjmp block for
On 20 September 2017 at 12:16, Craig Ringer wrote:
> The thought I had in mind upthread was to get rid of logicalrep slots
>> in favor of expanding the underlying bgworker slot with some additional
>> fields that would carry whatever extra info we need about a logicalrep
On 20 September 2017 at 12:06, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 9:23 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Craig Ringer writes:
> >> On 19 September 2017 at 18:04, Petr Jelinek <
> petr.jeli...@2ndquadrant.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
On 20 September 2017 at 11:53, Tom Lane wrote:
> Craig Ringer writes:
> > On 19 September 2017 at 18:04, Petr Jelinek <
> petr.jeli...@2ndquadrant.com>
> > wrote:
> >> If you are asking why they are not identified by the
> >> BackgroundWorkerHandle,
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 9:23 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Craig Ringer writes:
>> On 19 September 2017 at 18:04, Petr Jelinek
>> wrote:
>>> If you are asking why they are not identified by the
>>> BackgroundWorkerHandle, then
Craig Ringer writes:
> On 19 September 2017 at 18:04, Petr Jelinek
> wrote:
>> If you are asking why they are not identified by the
>> BackgroundWorkerHandle, then it's because it's private struct and can't
>> be shared with other processes so
On 19 September 2017 at 20:33, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Yeah, but you could have used the way we do for parallel query where
> we setup dsm and share all such information. You can check the logic
> of execparallel.c and parallel.c to see how we do all such stuff for
>
On 19 September 2017 at 18:04, Petr Jelinek
wrote:
>
> If you are asking why they are not identified by the
> BackgroundWorkerHandle, then it's because it's private struct and can't
> be shared with other processes so there is no way to link the logical
> worker
On 2017-09-19 17:20:49 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Thomas Munro writes:
> > This type of violent shutdown seems to be associated with occasional
> > corruption of .gcda files (the files output by GCC coverage builds).
> > The symptoms are that if you use
Thomas Munro writes:
> This type of violent shutdown seems to be associated with occasional
> corruption of .gcda files (the files output by GCC coverage builds).
> The symptoms are that if you use --enable-coverage and make
> check-world you'll very occasionally
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 10:18 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2017-09-18 21:57:04 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
>> WARNING: terminating connection because of crash of another server
>> process
>> DETAIL: The postmaster has commanded this server process to roll
>> back
On 19/09/17 16:30, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 3:34 PM, Petr Jelinek
> wrote:
>> n 18/09/17 18:42, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Amit Kapila writes:
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 7:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> So,
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 6:51 PM, Petr Jelinek
wrote:
> On 19/09/17 15:08, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>
>> I am not much aware of this area. Can you explain what other usages
>> it has apart from in the process that has launched the worker and in
>> worker itself?
>>
>
>
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 3:34 PM, Petr Jelinek
wrote:
> n 18/09/17 18:42, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Amit Kapila writes:
>>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 7:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
The subscriber log includes
2017-09-18
On 19/09/17 15:08, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 6:29 PM, Petr Jelinek
> wrote:
>> On 19/09/17 14:33, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 3:34 PM, Petr Jelinek
>>> wrote:
n 18/09/17 18:42, Tom Lane wrote:
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 6:29 PM, Petr Jelinek
wrote:
> On 19/09/17 14:33, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 3:34 PM, Petr Jelinek
>> wrote:
>>> n 18/09/17 18:42, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>
So, frankly, I think we would be best
On 19/09/17 14:33, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 3:34 PM, Petr Jelinek
> wrote:
>> n 18/09/17 18:42, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>> So, frankly, I think we would be best off losing the "logical rep
>>> worker slot" business altogether, and making do with just
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 3:34 PM, Petr Jelinek
wrote:
> n 18/09/17 18:42, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> So, frankly, I think we would be best off losing the "logical rep
>> worker slot" business altogether, and making do with just bgworker
>> slots.
I think that would be
n 18/09/17 18:42, Tom Lane wrote:
> Amit Kapila writes:
>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 7:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> The subscriber log includes
>>> 2017-09-18 08:43:08.240 UTC [15672] WARNING: out of background worker slots
>>> Maybe that's harmless, but
Amit Kapila writes:
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 7:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The subscriber log includes
>> 2017-09-18 08:43:08.240 UTC [15672] WARNING: out of background worker slots
>> Maybe that's harmless, but I'm suspicious that it's a smoking gun.
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 7:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Thomas Munro writes:
>> In this build you can see the output of the following at the end,
>> which might provide clues to the initiated. You might need to click a
>> small triangle to unfold
I wrote:
> The subscriber log includes
> 2017-09-18 08:43:08.240 UTC [15672] WARNING: out of background worker slots
> 2017-09-18 08:43:08.240 UTC [15672] HINT: You might need to increase
> max_worker_processes.
> Maybe that's harmless, but I'm suspicious that it's a smoking gun.
Actually:
Thomas Munro writes:
> In this build you can see the output of the following at the end,
> which might provide clues to the initiated. You might need to click a
> small triangle to unfold the commands' output.
> cat
Hi,
On 2017-09-18 21:57:04 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> The subscription tests 002_types.pl sometimes hangs for a while and
> then times out when run on a Travis CI build VM running Ubuntu Trusty
> if --enable-coverage is used.
Yea, I saw that too.
> I guess it might be a timing/race
> problem
Hi,
The subscription tests 002_types.pl sometimes hangs for a while and
then times out when run on a Travis CI build VM running Ubuntu Trusty
if --enable-coverage is used. I guess it might be a timing/race
problem because I can't think of any mechanism specific to coverage
instrumentation except
26 matches
Mail list logo