Re: [HACKERS] SERIALIZABLE with parallel query

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

Re: [HACKERS] SERIALIZABLE with parallel query

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

Re: [HACKERS] SERIALIZABLE with parallel query

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

Re: [HACKERS] SERIALIZABLE with parallel query

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

Re: [HACKERS] SERIALIZABLE with parallel query

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]

Re: [HACKERS] SERIALIZABLE with parallel query

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

Re: [HACKERS] SERIALIZABLE with parallel query

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

Re: [HACKERS] SERIALIZABLE with parallel query

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

Re: [HACKERS] SERIALIZABLE with parallel query

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

Re: [HACKERS] SERIALIZABLE with parallel query

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

Re: [HACKERS] SERIALIZABLE with parallel query

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

Re: [HACKERS] SERIALIZABLE with parallel query

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

Re: [HACKERS] SERIALIZABLE with parallel query

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

Re: [HACKERS] SERIALIZABLE with parallel query

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

Re: [HACKERS] SERIALIZABLE with parallel query

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

Re: [HACKERS] SERIALIZABLE with parallel query

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

Re: [HACKERS] SERIALIZABLE with parallel query

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,

Re: [HACKERS] SERIALIZABLE with parallel query

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

Re: [HACKERS] SERIALIZABLE with parallel query

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