On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 at 19:55, vignesh C wrote:
>
> On Thu, 9 Feb 2023 at 12:02, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 1:13 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 1:19 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 2023-02-01 11:23:57 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
On Thu, 9 Feb 2023 at 12:02, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 1:13 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 1:19 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2023-02-01 11:23:57 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 6:08 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > > >
This thread has gone for about a year here without making any
progress, which isn't great.
On Tue, Feb 7, 2023 at 2:49 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> Hm. It's worrysome to now hold ProcArrayLock exclusively while iterating over
> the slots. ReplicationSlotsComputeRequiredXmin() can be called at a
>
> On 9 Feb 2023, at 07:32, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> I've attached the patch of this idea for discussion.
Amit, Andres: have you had a chance to look at the updated version of this
patch?
--
Daniel Gustafsson
On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 1:13 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 1:19 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> >
> > On 2023-02-01 11:23:57 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 6:08 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Attached updated patches.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 1:35 AM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> On 2023-02-07 11:49:03 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2023-02-01 11:23:57 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 6:08 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Attached updated patches.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 1:19 AM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> On 2023-02-01 11:23:57 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 6:08 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Attached updated patches.
> > >
> >
> > Thanks, Andres, others, do you see a better way to fix this problem? I
> >
Hi,
On 2023-02-07 11:49:03 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2023-02-01 11:23:57 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 6:08 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Attached updated patches.
> > >
> >
> > Thanks, Andres, others, do you see a better way to fix this problem? I
> >
Hi,
On 2023-02-01 11:23:57 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 6:08 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > Attached updated patches.
> >
>
> Thanks, Andres, others, do you see a better way to fix this problem? I
> have reproduced it manually and the steps are shared at [1] and
>
On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 6:08 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> Attached updated patches.
>
In back-branch patches, the change is as below:
+ *
+ * NB: the caller must hold ProcArrayLock in an exclusive mode regardless of
+ * already_locked which is unused now but kept for ABI compatibility.
*/
On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 6:08 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> Attached updated patches.
>
Thanks, Andres, others, do you see a better way to fix this problem? I
have reproduced it manually and the steps are shared at [1] and
Sawada-San also reproduced it, see [2].
[1] -
On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 3:59 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 3:56 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 11:12 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 9:41 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > I've attached patches for
On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 3:56 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 11:12 AM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 9:41 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> >
> > I've attached patches for HEAD and backbranches. Please review them.
> >
>
> Shall we add a comment like
On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 11:12 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 9:41 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> I've attached patches for HEAD and backbranches. Please review them.
>
Shall we add a comment like the one below in
ReplicationSlotsComputeRequiredXmin()?
diff --git
On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 9:41 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 8:30 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 4:31 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Thank you for making the patch! I'm still considering whether this
> > > approach is
> > >
On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 8:24 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 8:17 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 4:31 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > One idea to fix this issue is that in
> > ReplicationSlotsComputeRequiredXmin(), we compute the minimum xmin
> > while
On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 8:30 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 4:31 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you for making the patch! I'm still considering whether this approach
> > is
> > correct, but I can put a comment to your patch anyway.
> >
> > ```
> > -
On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 4:31 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> Thank you for making the patch! I'm still considering whether this approach is
> correct, but I can put a comment to your patch anyway.
>
> ```
> - Assert(!already_locked || LWLockHeldByMe(ProcArrayLock));
> -
> - if
On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 11:34 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> I have reproduced it manually. For this, I had to manually make the
> debugger call ReplicationSlotsComputeRequiredXmin(false) via path
> SnapBuildProcessRunningXacts()->LogicalIncreaseXminForSlot()->LogicalConfirmReceivedLocation()
>
On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 8:17 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 4:31 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> One idea to fix this issue is that in
> ReplicationSlotsComputeRequiredXmin(), we compute the minimum xmin
> while holding both ProcArrayLock and ReplicationSlotControlLock, and
>
On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 10:27 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2023 at 9:15 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 11:54 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Amit, Sawada-san,
> > >
> > > I have also reproduced the failure on PG15 with some debug
On Sun, Jan 29, 2023 at 9:15 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 11:54 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Amit, Sawada-san,
> >
> > I have also reproduced the failure on PG15 with some debug log, and I
> > agreed that
> > somebody changed
On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 11:54 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> Dear Amit, Sawada-san,
>
> I have also reproduced the failure on PG15 with some debug log, and I agreed
> that
> somebody changed procArray->replication_slot_xmin to InvalidTransactionId.
>
> > > The same assertion failure has
Dear Amit, Sawada-san,
I have also reproduced the failure on PG15 with some debug log, and I agreed
that
somebody changed procArray->replication_slot_xmin to InvalidTransactionId.
> > The same assertion failure has been reported on another thread[1].
> > Since I could reproduce this issue
Dear Sawada-san,
Thank you for making the patch! I'm still considering whether this approach is
correct, but I can put a comment to your patch anyway.
```
- Assert(!already_locked || LWLockHeldByMe(ProcArrayLock));
-
- if (!already_locked)
- LWLockAcquire(ProcArrayLock,
On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 8:17 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> The same assertion failure has been reported on another thread[1].
> Since I could reproduce this issue several times in my environment
> I've investigated the root cause.
>
> I think there is a race condition of updating
>
On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 4:31 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Sat, Nov 19, 2022 at 6:35 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> >
> > On 2022-11-18 11:20:36 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > Okay, updated the patch accordingly.
> >
> > Assuming it passes tests etc, this'd work for me.
> >
>
> Thanks, Pushed.
The
On Sat, Nov 19, 2022 at 6:35 AM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> On 2022-11-18 11:20:36 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > Okay, updated the patch accordingly.
>
> Assuming it passes tests etc, this'd work for me.
>
Thanks, Pushed.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
Hi,
On 2022-11-18 11:20:36 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Okay, updated the patch accordingly.
Assuming it passes tests etc, this'd work for me.
- Andres
On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 11:15 PM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> On 2022-11-17 10:44:18 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 11:56 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > > On 2022-11-16 14:22:01 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 7:30 AM Andres Freund
> > > > wrote:
> > >
Hi,
On 2022-11-17 10:44:18 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 11:56 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2022-11-16 14:22:01 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 7:30 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> > > > On 2022-11-15 16:20:00 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > > > On Tue,
On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 11:56 PM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> On 2022-11-16 14:22:01 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 7:30 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2022-11-15 16:20:00 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 8:08 AM Andres Freund
> > > > wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 11:56 PM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> On 2022-11-16 14:22:01 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 7:30 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2022-11-15 16:20:00 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 8:08 AM Andres Freund
> > > > wrote:
Hi,
On 2022-11-16 14:22:01 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 7:30 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> >
> > On 2022-11-15 16:20:00 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 8:08 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> > > > nor do we enforce in an obvious place that we
> > > > don't
On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 7:30 AM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> On 2022-11-15 16:20:00 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 8:08 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> > > nor do we enforce in an obvious place that we
> > > don't already hold a snapshot.
> > >
> >
> > We have a check for
Hi,
On 2022-11-15 16:20:00 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 8:08 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> > nor do we enforce in an obvious place that we
> > don't already hold a snapshot.
> >
>
> We have a check for (FirstXactSnapshot == NULL) in
>
On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 6:55 AM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> On 2022-11-10 16:04:40 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > I don't have any good ideas on how to proceed with this. Any thoughts
> > on this would be helpful?
>
> One thing worth doing might be to convert the assertion path into an elog(),
>
On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 8:08 AM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> On 2022-11-14 17:25:31 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Hm, also, shouldn't the patch adding CRS_USE_SNAPSHOT have copied more of
> > SnapBuildExportSnapshot()? Why aren't the error checks for
> > SnapBuildExportSnapshot() needed? Why don't
Hi,
On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 10:26 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2022-11-10 16:04:40 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > I don't have any good ideas on how to proceed with this. Any thoughts
> > on this would be helpful?
>
> One thing worth doing might be to convert the assertion path into an
On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 3:38 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2022-11-14 17:25:31 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> Another theory: I dimly remember Thomas mentioning that there's some different
> behaviour of xlogreader during shutdown as part of the v15 changes. I don't
> quite remember what the
Hi,
On 2022-11-14 17:25:31 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hm, also, shouldn't the patch adding CRS_USE_SNAPSHOT have copied more of
> SnapBuildExportSnapshot()? Why aren't the error checks for
> SnapBuildExportSnapshot() needed? Why don't we need to set XactReadOnly? Which
> transactions are we
Hi,
On 2022-11-10 16:04:40 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> I don't have any good ideas on how to proceed with this. Any thoughts
> on this would be helpful?
One thing worth doing might be to convert the assertion path into an elog(),
mentioning both xids (or add a framework for things like
Hi,
Thomas has reported this failure in an email [1] and shared the
following links offlist with me:
https://cirrus-ci.com/task/5311549010083840
https://api.cirrus-ci.com/v1/artifact/task/5311549010083840/testrun/build/testrun/subscription/100_bugs/log/100_bugs_twoways.log
43 matches
Mail list logo
