Hi,
On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 02:10:54PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 12:19 AM Bertrand Drouvot
> wrote:
> > The reason why we are using a dirty snapshot here is for the cases where we
> > are
> > recording a dependency on a referenced object that we are creating at the
>
On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 12:19 AM Bertrand Drouvot
wrote:
> The reason why we are using a dirty snapshot here is for the cases where we
> are
> recording a dependency on a referenced object that we are creating at the same
> time behind the scene (for example, creating a composite type while
Hi,
On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 10:48:12AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 6:21 AM Bertrand Drouvot
> wrote:
> > I started initially with [1] but it was focusing on function-schema only.
>
> Yeah, that's what I thought we would want to do. And then just extend
> that to the
On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 6:21 AM Bertrand Drouvot
wrote:
> I started initially with [1] but it was focusing on function-schema only.
Yeah, that's what I thought we would want to do. And then just extend
that to the other cases.
> Then I proposed [2] making use of a dirty snapshot when recording
Hi,
On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 08:53:06AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 6:31 AM Bertrand Drouvot
> wrote:
> > Please find attached v6 (only diff with v5 is moving the tests as suggested
> > above).
>
> I don't immediately know what to think about this patch.
Thanks for
On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 6:31 AM Bertrand Drouvot
wrote:
> Please find attached v6 (only diff with v5 is moving the tests as suggested
> above).
I don't immediately know what to think about this patch. I've known
about this issue for a long time, but I didn't think this was how we
would fix it.
Hi,
On Sun, May 19, 2024 at 11:00:00AM +0300, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
> Hello Bertrand,
>
> Probably, it's worth to avoid ERRCODE_INTERNAL_ERROR here in light of [1]
> and [2], as these errors are not that abnormal (not Assert-like).
>
> [1]
Hello Bertrand,
15.05.2024 11:31, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 10:14:09AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
+if (object_description)
+ereport(ERROR, errmsg("%s does not exist",
object_description));
+else
+ereport(ERROR,
Hi,
On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 08:31:43AM +, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 10:14:09AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > +++
> > b/src/test/modules/test_dependencies_locks/specs/test_dependencies_locks.spec
> >
> >
> > This introduces a module with only one single
Hi,
On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 03:00:00PM +0300, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
> Hi Bertrand,
>
> 09.05.2024 15:20, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> > Oh I see, your test updates an existing dependency. v4 took care about
> > brand new
> > dependencies creation (recordMultipleDependencies()) but forgot to take
Hi,
On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 10:14:09AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 12:20:51PM +, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> > Oh I see, your test updates an existing dependency. v4 took care about
> > brand new
> > dependencies creation (recordMultipleDependencies()) but forgot
On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 12:20:51PM +, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> Oh I see, your test updates an existing dependency. v4 took care about brand
> new
> dependencies creation (recordMultipleDependencies()) but forgot to take care
> about changing an existing dependency (which is done in another
Hi Bertrand,
09.05.2024 15:20, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
Oh I see, your test updates an existing dependency. v4 took care about brand new
dependencies creation (recordMultipleDependencies()) but forgot to take care
about changing an existing dependency (which is done in another code path:
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 08:00:00PM +0300, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
> Hi Bertrand,
>
> But I've discovered yet another possibility to get a broken dependency.
Thanks for the testing and the report!
> Please try this script:
> res=0
> numclients=20
> for ((i=1;i<=100;i++)); do
> for
Hi Bertrand,
25.04.2024 10:20, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
postgres=# CREATE FUNCTION f() RETURNS int LANGUAGE SQL RETURN f() + 1;
ERROR: cache lookup failed for function 16400
This stuff does appear before we get a chance to call the new
depLockAndCheckObject()
function.
I think this is what
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 09:00:00AM +0300, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 25.04.2024 08:00, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> >
> > > though concurrent create/drop operations can still produce
> > > the "cache lookup failed" error, which is probably okay, except that it is
> > > an
Hi,
25.04.2024 08:00, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
though concurrent create/drop operations can still produce
the "cache lookup failed" error, which is probably okay, except that it is
an INTERNAL_ERROR, which assumed to be not easily triggered by users.
I did not see any of those "cache lookup
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 03:00:00PM +0300, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
> 24.04.2024 11:38, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> > I gave more thought to v2 and the approach seems reasonable to me.
> > Basically what
> > it does is that in case the object is already dropped before we take the
> > new lock
>
Hi Bertrand,
24.04.2024 11:38, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
Please find attached v2 that should not produce the issue anymore (I launched a
lot of attempts without any issues). v1 was not strong enough as it was not
always checking for the dependent object existence. v2 now always checks if the
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 04:20:46PM +, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> Please find attached v2 that should not produce the issue anymore (I launched
> a
> lot of attempts without any issues). v1 was not strong enough as it was not
> always checking for the dependent object existence. v2 now
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 04:59:09AM +, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 03:00:00PM +0300, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
> > 22.04.2024 13:52, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> > >
> > > That's weird, I just launched it several times with the patch applied and
> > > I'm not
>
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 03:00:00PM +0300, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
> 22.04.2024 13:52, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> >
> > That's weird, I just launched it several times with the patch applied and
> > I'm not
> > able to see the seg fault (while I can see it constently failing on the
> > master
22.04.2024 13:52, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
That's weird, I just launched it several times with the patch applied and I'm
not
able to see the seg fault (while I can see it constently failing on the master
branch).
Are you 100% sure you tested it against a binary with the patch applied?
Yes,
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 01:00:00PM +0300, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
> Hi Bertrand,
>
> 22.04.2024 11:45, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > This new thread is a follow-up of [1] and [2].
> >
> > Problem description:
> >
> > We have occasionally observed objects having an orphaned
Hi Bertrand,
22.04.2024 11:45, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
Hi,
This new thread is a follow-up of [1] and [2].
Problem description:
We have occasionally observed objects having an orphaned dependency, the
most common case we have seen is functions not linked to any namespaces.
...
Looking
Hi,
This new thread is a follow-up of [1] and [2].
Problem description:
We have occasionally observed objects having an orphaned dependency, the
most common case we have seen is functions not linked to any namespaces.
Examples to produce such orphaned dependencies:
Scenario 1:
session 1:
26 matches
Mail list logo
