> On 2017-09-10 17:12:19 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
>> On 2017-09-11 09:10:49 +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>> > If you don't mind, can you please commit/push the patch?
>>
>> Ok, will do so.
>
> And, done. Thanks for patch and reminder!
Thanks!
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English:
On 2017-09-10 17:12:19 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2017-09-11 09:10:49 +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> > If you don't mind, can you please commit/push the patch?
>
> Ok, will do so.
And, done. Thanks for patch and reminder!
- Andres
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
Hi,
On 2017-09-11 09:10:49 +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> If you don't mind, can you please commit/push the patch?
Ok, will do so.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
Andres,
If you don't mind, can you please commit/push the patch?
Best regards,
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp
>> What do you think? I've not really tested this with the extended
>> protocol, so I'd appreciate
> What do you think? I've not really tested this with the extended
> protocol, so I'd appreciate if you could rerun your test from the
> older thread.
Attached is your patch just rebased against master branch.
Also I attached the test cases and results using pgproto on patched
master branch.
On 2017-04-05 09:46:31 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2017-04-05 00:39:51 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> but
> >> if that's what we're doing, let's make sure we do it consistently.
> >> I haven't read the patch, but the comments in this thread make me fear
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2017-04-05 00:39:51 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> but
>> if that's what we're doing, let's make sure we do it consistently.
>> I haven't read the patch, but the comments in this thread make me fear
>> that it's introducing some ad-hoc, inconsistent
> Then, the following sequence should have occurred. The test result is valid.
Yes, I remembered that and was about to make a posting :-)
> # Execute statement which takes 2 seconds.
> 'P' "S1""SELECT pg_sleep(2)"0
> -> start transaction T1
> 'B' "S2""S1"0 0 0
On 2017-04-05 00:39:51 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2017-04-05 10:05:19 +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> >> What's your point of the question? What kind of problem do you expect
> >> if the timeout starts only once at the first parse meesage out of
> >>
From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Tatsuo Ishii
> Since pgproto is a dumb protocol machine, it does not start a transaction
> automatically (user needs to explicitly send a start transaction command
> via either simple or extended
> From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org
>> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Tatsuo Ishii
>> I have done tests using pgproto. One thing I noticed a strange behavior.
>> Below is an output of pgproto. The test first set the timeout to 3 seconds,
>> and parse/bind for
From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Tatsuo Ishii
> I have done tests using pgproto. One thing I noticed a strange behavior.
> Below is an output of pgproto. The test first set the timeout to 3 seconds,
> and parse/bind for "SELECT
>> What do you think? I've not really tested this with the extended protocol,
>> so I'd appreciate if you could rerun your test from the older thread.
>
> The patch looks good and cleaner. It looks like the code works as expected.
> As before, I ran one INSERT statement with PgJDBC, with
From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of 'Andres Freund'
> Attached. I did not like that the previous patch had the timeout handling
> duplicated in the individual functions, I instead centralized it into
> start_xact_command(). Given
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2017-04-05 10:05:19 +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>> What's your point of the question? What kind of problem do you expect
>> if the timeout starts only once at the first parse meesage out of
>> bunch of parse messages?
> It's perfectly valid to send a
From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Tatsuo Ishii
> Hmm. IMO, that could happen even with the current statement timeout
> implementation as well.
>
> Or we could start/stop the timeout in exec_execute_message() only. This
> could
> On 2017-04-04 16:56:26 -0700, 'Andres Freund' wrote:
>> On 2017-04-04 23:52:28 +, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
>> > From: Andres Freund [mailto:and...@anarazel.de]
>> > > Looks to me like npgsql doesn't do that either. None of libpq, pgjdbs
>> > > and
>> > > npgsql doing it seems like some
On 2017-04-04 16:56:26 -0700, 'Andres Freund' wrote:
> On 2017-04-04 23:52:28 +, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> > From: Andres Freund [mailto:and...@anarazel.de]
> > > Looks to me like npgsql doesn't do that either. None of libpq, pgjdbs and
> > > npgsql doing it seems like some evidence that
>> What's your point of the question? What kind of problem do you expect
>> if the timeout starts only once at the first parse meesage out of
>> bunch of parse messages?
>
> It's perfectly valid to send a lot of Parse messages without
> interspersed Sync or Bind/Execute message. There'll be one
On 2017-04-05 10:05:19 +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> > Hm. I started to edit it, but I'm halfway coming back to my previous
> > view that this isn't necessarily ready.
> >
> > If a client were to to prepare a large number of prepared statements
> > (i.e. a lot of parse messages), this'll only
> Hm. I started to edit it, but I'm halfway coming back to my previous
> view that this isn't necessarily ready.
>
> If a client were to to prepare a large number of prepared statements
> (i.e. a lot of parse messages), this'll only start the timeout once, at
> the first statement sent. It's not
On 2017-04-04 23:52:28 +, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> From: Andres Freund [mailto:and...@anarazel.de]
> > Looks to me like npgsql doesn't do that either. None of libpq, pgjdbs and
> > npgsql doing it seems like some evidence that it's ok.
>
> And psqlODBC now uses always libpq.
>
> Now
From: Andres Freund [mailto:and...@anarazel.de]
> Looks to me like npgsql doesn't do that either. None of libpq, pgjdbs and
> npgsql doing it seems like some evidence that it's ok.
And psqlODBC now uses always libpq.
Now time for final decision?
Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa
--
Sent via
On 2017-04-04 16:38:53 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2017-04-04 16:10:32 +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> > >> If what Tatsuo-san said to Tom is correct (i.e. each Parse/Bind/Execute
> > >> starts and stops the timer), then it's a concern and the patch should
> > >> not be ready for committer.
On 2017-04-05 08:34:43 +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> Andres,
>
> >> I think the code needs a few clarifying comments around this, but
> >> otherwise seems good. Not restarting the timeout in those cases
> >> obviously isn't entirely "perfect"/"correct", but a tradeoff - the
> >> comments should
On 2017-04-04 16:10:32 +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> >> If what Tatsuo-san said to Tom is correct (i.e. each Parse/Bind/Execute
> >> starts and stops the timer), then it's a concern and the patch should not
> >> be ready for committer. However, the current patch is not like that -- it
> >>
Andres,
>> I think the code needs a few clarifying comments around this, but
>> otherwise seems good. Not restarting the timeout in those cases
>> obviously isn't entirely "perfect"/"correct", but a tradeoff - the
>> comments should note that.
>>
>> Tatsuo-san, do you want to change those, and
>> If what Tatsuo-san said to Tom is correct (i.e. each Parse/Bind/Execute
>> starts and stops the timer), then it's a concern and the patch should not be
>> ready for committer. However, the current patch is not like that -- it
>> seems to do what others in this thread are expecting.
>
> Oh,
On 2017-04-04 06:35:00 +, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> From: Andres Freund [mailto:and...@anarazel.de]
> Given the concern raised in
> > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/12207.1491228316%40sss.pgh.p
> > a.us
> > I don't see this being ready for committer.
>
> If what Tatsuo-san said
From: Andres Freund [mailto:and...@anarazel.de]
Given the concern raised in
> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/12207.1491228316%40sss.pgh.p
> a.us
> I don't see this being ready for committer.
If what Tatsuo-san said to Tom is correct (i.e. each Parse/Bind/Execute starts
and stops the
On 2017-04-04 06:18:04 +, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> From: Tatsuo Ishii [mailto:is...@sraoss.co.jp]
> > It's too late. Someone has already moved the patch to the next CF (for
> > PostgreSQL 11).
>
> Yes, but this patch will be necessary by the final release of PG 10 if the
> libpq
From: Tatsuo Ishii [mailto:is...@sraoss.co.jp]
> It's too late. Someone has already moved the patch to the next CF (for
> PostgreSQL 11).
Yes, but this patch will be necessary by the final release of PG 10 if the
libpq batch/pipelining is committed in PG 10.
I marked this as ready for committer
> The patch doesn't seem to behave like that. The Parse message calls
> start_xact_command() -> enable_statement_timeout() -> enable_timeout(), and
> set stmt_timer_started to true. Subsequent Bind and Execute messages call
> enable_statement_timeout(), but enable_statement_timeout() doesn't
From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Tatsuo Ishii
> Actually the statement timer is replaced with new statement timer value
> in enable_statement_timeout().
The patch doesn't seem to behave like that. The Parse message calls
> Where is the statement_timeout timer stopped when processing Parse and Bind
> messages?
Actually the statement timer is replaced with new statement timer
value in enable_statement_timeout().
> Do you mean the following sequence of operations are performed in this patch?
>
> Parse(statement1)
From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Tatsuo Ishii
> No. Parse, bind and Execute message indivually stops and starts the
> statement_timeout timer with the patch. Unless there's a lock conflict,
> parse and bind will take very short
On 2017-04-03 23:31:59 +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> > That seems like it could represent quite a lot of added overhead,
> > on machines where gettimeofday() is slow ... which is still a lot
> > of them, unfortunately.
>
> Maybe. I think we could eliminate restarting the timer for parse and
>
> That seems like it could represent quite a lot of added overhead,
> on machines where gettimeofday() is slow ... which is still a lot
> of them, unfortunately.
Maybe. I think we could eliminate restarting the timer for parse and
bind.
Best regards,
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English:
Tatsuo Ishii writes:
>> * The difference is that the Execute message stops the statement_timeout
>> timer,
> No. Parse, bind and Execute message indivually stops and starts the
> statement_timeout timer with the patch.
That seems like it could represent quite a lot of
Thank you for reviewing my patch!
> Hello,
>
>
> I've reviewed the patch. My understanding is as follows. Please correct me
> if I'm wrong.
>
> * The difference is that the Execute message stops the statement_timeout
> timer,
No. Parse, bind and Execute message indivually stops and
Hello,
I've reviewed the patch. My understanding is as follows. Please correct me if
I'm wrong.
* The difference is that the Execute message stops the statement_timeout timer,
so that the execution of one statement doesn't shorten the timeout period of
subsequent statements when they are
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 11:50:44AM +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>> Last year I have proposed an enhancement regarding behavior of the
>> statement timeout in extended queries.
>>
>> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160528.220442.1489791680347556026.t-ishii%40sraoss.co.jp
>>
>> IMO the
On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 11:50:44AM +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> Last year I have proposed an enhancement regarding behavior of the
> statement timeout in extended queries.
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160528.220442.1489791680347556026.t-ishii%40sraoss.co.jp
>
> IMO the current
Last year I have proposed an enhancement regarding behavior of the
statement timeout in extended queries.
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160528.220442.1489791680347556026.t-ishii%40sraoss.co.jp
IMO the current behavior is counter intuitive and I would like to
change it toward PostgreSQL
44 matches
Mail list logo