On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 10:24 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 11:24 AM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 2:04 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> >
> > Thank you for the comment. Agreed.
> >
> > I'v
enxid/relminmxid and want to manually run
vacuum on them rather than relying on autovacuums. --min-xid-age
option and --min-mxid-age option of vacuumdb command would be good
examples. So I think this new command/facility might not necessarily
need to be specific to single-user mode.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/
On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 10:24 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 11:24 AM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 2:04 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> >
> > Thank you for the comment. Agreed.
> >
> > I'v
On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 1:53 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 8:40 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > BTW a vacuum automatically enters failsafe mode under the situation
> > where the user has to run a vacuum in the single-user mode, right?
>
> Onl
On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 2:04 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 10:05 AM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 12:05 PM Amit Kapila
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 6:29 PM Masahiko S
matically enters failsafe mode under the situation
where the user has to run a vacuum in the single-user mode, right?
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/
On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 12:05 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 6:29 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 1:08 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. What is the reason for not movi
On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 11:29 AM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 10:46 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> > > My emphasis here has been on making non-aggressive VACUUMs *always*
> > > advance relfrozenxid, outside of certain obvious edge cases. And so
On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 1:08 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 8:33 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 3:38 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > Few comments:
> > > =
> > > 1.
> >
On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 3:38 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 10:51 AM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > I've attached updated patches. The first patch just moves common
> > function for index bulk-deletion and cleanup to vacuum.c. And the
> > s
c numbers and instead use a syntax that is more
> > explicit, like SKIP (xid = NONE) or RESET SKIP or something like that.
> >
>
> +1 for using SKIP (xid = NONE) because otherwise first we need to
> introduce RESET syntax for this command.
Agreed. Thank you for the comment!
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/
cks - 1)
Why do we always need to scan the last page even if heap truncation is
disabled (or in the failsafe mode)?
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/
On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 4:27 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 4:03 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 12:03 PM Amit Kapila
> > wrote:
> > > There is still pending
> > > work related to moving parallel vacuum cod
On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 10:38 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 6:13 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 1:56 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 1:33 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > > wrote:
&
On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 1:56 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 1:33 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > I've attached an updated patch. The patch incorporated several changes
> > from the last version:
> >
> > * Rename parallel_vacuum_begin() t
On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 2:21 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 10:37 AM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 11:43 AM Amit Kapila
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I thought we just want to lock before clearing the skip_
On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 11:43 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 8:19 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 1:10 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 8:19 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > > wrote:
&g
On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 1:10 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 8:19 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 2:35 PM Greg Nancarrow wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 3:23 PM vignesh C wrote:
> > > >
>
On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 12:03 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 7:40 AM tanghy.f...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, December 13, 2021 2:12 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 2:09 PM Amit Kapila
form only copy operation or
> maybe a fixed number of xacts, so, one might not be interested in the
> transaction stats of these workers. I find merging only specific stats
> of two different types of workers confusing.
>
> What do others think about this?
I understand the concern to have a large number of entries but I agree
that merging only specific stats would confuse users. As Amit
suggested, it'd be better to show only apply workers' transaction
stats.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/
could happen and seems not
good. I thought we can acquire Share lock on pg_subscription during
the skip but not sure it's a good idea. It would be better if we can
find a way to allow users to specify only XID that has failed.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/
patch doesn't skip the streaming
phase but starts skipping when starting to apply changes. That is, we
receive streamed changes and write them to the stream file anyway
regardless of skip_xid. When receiving the stream-commit message, we
check whether or not we skip this transaction, and if so we apply all
messages in the stream file other than all data modification messages.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/
On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 1:04 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 8:28 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Dec 11, 2021 at 3:29 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > 3.
> > > + * Also, we don't skip receiving the changes in streaming c
ward. If replication origin LSN and timestamp in commit
record and rollback record must be valid data too, I think we should
similar checks for commit and rollback code and I think the assertions
will fail in the case I reported before[1].
Regards,
[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-
On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 2:09 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 10:33 AM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 9:08 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 6:05 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > > wrote
On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 9:08 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 6:05 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 7:44 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > Agreed with the above two points.
> >
> > I've attached updated patches th
On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 12:03 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 11, 2021 at 8:30 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Dec 11, 2021 at 2:32 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On 2021-10-30 14:21:01 -0700, Andre
On Sat, Dec 11, 2021 at 3:29 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 11:14 AM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 6:16 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 2:24 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > > wrote:
in vacrel for caller.
>
> But it actually doesn't know whether we can start workers. It just checks
> max_parallel_maintenance_workers, no?
Yes, we cannot know whether we can actually start workers when
starting parallel index vacuuming. It returns non-NULL if we request
one or more workers.
Regards
--
Masahiko Sawada
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/
On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 12:37 PM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2021-09-01 10:05:18 +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 2:39 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> > > On 2021-08-31 18:34:12 +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > > > At Tue, 31 A
On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 6:16 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 2:24 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 11:47 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > I am thinking that we can start a transaction, update the catalog,
> > &
On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 7:05 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 10:17 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 6:06 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 6:03 PM Amit Kapila
> > > wr
On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 11:47 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 4:36 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 5:54 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 12:36 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > > wrote:
> &
On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 4:02 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 08, 2021 at 05:03:30PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > Agreed. I've attached an updated patch that incorporated your review
> > comments. Please review it.
>
> That looks correct to me. One thing t
rS91Nq0eVQ0B3BA%40mail.gmail.com
But not completed.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/
On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 4:05 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > Okay, I understand those cases but note always checking if the
> > prepared xact exists during commit prepared has a cost and that is why
> > we avoided it at the first place.
BTW what costs were we concerned about? Look
On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 5:54 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 12:36 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 3:50 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 11:48 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > > wrote:
>
On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 4:31 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 06, 2021 at 11:24:09PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 5:09 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> Shouldn't you check for parsed.origin_lsn instead? The replication
> >> orig
On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 3:50 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 11:48 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 2:16 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 5:06 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > > wrote:
> &
On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 2:16 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 5:06 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 2:17 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > I'll submit the patch tomorrow.
> >
> > While updating the pat
On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 12:22 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 1:42 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> > I've attached an updated patch. I've removed 0003 patch that added
> > regression tests as per discussion. Regarding the term
On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 2:17 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 12:12 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 11:53 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > > But this syntax gives you flexibility, so we can also
>
On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 1:47 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 6:06 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 6:03 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 6:01 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > > wrote:
On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 11:24 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 5:09 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 06, 2021 at 04:35:07PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > > I've attached a patch to add replication origin information to
> > &g
ome new checks. Since it could be
frequently called, I used unlikely() but probably we can also consider
replacing elog(ERROR) with assertions.
Regards,
[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAD21AoD2dJfgsdxk4_KciAZMZQoUiCvmV9sDpp8ZuKLtKCNXaA%40mail.gmail.com
--
Masahiko Sawada
EDB: http
On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 5:09 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 06, 2021 at 04:35:07PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > I've attached a patch to add replication origin information to
> > xact_desc_prepare().
>
> Yeah.
>
> + if (origin_id != InvalidRepOrigin
/message-id/CAHGQGwEvhASad4JJnCv%3D0dW2TJypZgW_Vpb-oZik2a3utCqcrA%40mail.gmail.com
--
Masahiko Sawada
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/
From b37d5a8cd5b84eeb850bd7ddeb903024652f20d2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Masahiko Sawada
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2021 14:32:57 +0900
Subject: [PATCH] Make
On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 6:03 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 6:01 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > I've attached updated patches.
> >
>
> I have a few comments on v4-0001.
Thank you for the comments!
> 1.
> In parallel_vacuum_process_a
and
On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 6:56 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 2:33 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 6:01 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I've attached updated patches.
> > >
> >
&
to achieve. If we allow
specifying operations and/or relations, probably multiple operations
or relations need to be specified in some cases. Otherwise, the
subscriber cannot continue logical replication if the transaction has
multiple operations on different relations that fail. But similar to
the idea
On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 4:42 AM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 7:00 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > Thanks! I'll change my parallel vacuum refactoring patch accordingly.
>
> Thanks again for working on that.
>
> > Regarding the commit, I think th
On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 1:00 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 9:12 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 12:22 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 8:24 AM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
> > > w
On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 12:22 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 8:24 AM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tues, Nov 30, 2021 9:39 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Shouldn't we someway check that the error message
On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 8:41 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 6:28 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 11:38 AM vignesh C wrote:
> > >
> >
> > I have pushed this patch and there is a buildfarm failure for it. See:
&
st_subscription_error() which is not what we expect in the test?
Right.
> Shouldn't we someway check that the error message also starts with
> "duplicate key value violates ..."?
Yeah, I think it's a good idea to make the checks more specific. That
is, probably we can specify the prefix of the error message and
subrelid in addition to the current conditions: relid and xid. That
way, we can check what error was reported by which workers (tablesync
or apply) for which relations. And both check queries in
test_subscription_error() can have the same WHERE clause.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/
On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 3:00 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 11:03 AM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 11:38 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > >
> >
> > 2)
> > + /* Reinitialize the pa
On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 3:00 AM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 4:48 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > The patch renames dead tuples to dead items at some places and to
> > dead TIDs at some places.
>
> > I think it's more consistent if we change it
On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 5:54 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 12:16 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 1:34 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 7:43 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > > wrote:
On Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 7:56 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 6:00 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > Indeed. Attached an updated patch. Thanks!
> >
>
Thank you for updating the patch!
> I have made a number of changes in the attached patch
On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 10:06 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> On Thur, Nov 25, 2021 8:29 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 1:57 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 5:14 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
&
On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 9:08 PM Greg Nancarrow wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 10:44 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > I've attached an updated version patch. Unless I miss something, all
> > comments I got so far have been incorporated into this patch. Please
On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 7:36 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 5:14 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 8:14 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 12:01 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > > wrote:
On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 1:57 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 5:14 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > Changed. I've removed first_error_time as per discussion on the thread
> > for adding xact stats.
> >
>
> We also agreed to change the co
space used
* for dead_items.
*/
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 8:14 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 12:01 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > Right. I've fixed this issue and attached an updated patch.
> >
>
> Few comments/questions:
> =
> 1.
> +
&
On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 12:13 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 7:51 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 12:52 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 2:31 PM Masahiko Sawad
On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 1:34 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 7:43 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 1:48 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 7:55 AM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
> > > wrote:
On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 1:28 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 7:07 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 6:35 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 11:23 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > > wrote:
>
he slot name to sync with the primary. I'm not sure we already
discussed this topic but I think we need it at least for testing
purposes.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 12:52 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 2:31 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> > Right. I've fixed this issue and attached an updated patch.
> >
> Hi,
>
> I have few comments for the testcases.
>
On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 11:25 AM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> On Tues, Nov 16, 2021 1:53 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > I've incorporated these comments and attached an updated patch.
>
> Thanks for updating the patch.
> I read the latest patch and have few
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 1:48 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 7:55 AM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tues, Nov 16, 2021 1:53 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > > I've incorporated these comments and attached an updated patch.
&
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 6:35 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 11:23 AM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > I've incorporated these comments and attached an updated patch.
> >
>
> Review comments:
>
> 1.
On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 3:21 PM Greg Nancarrow wrote:
>
> On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 1:11 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > I'm concerned that these new names will introduce confusion; if we
> > have last_error_relid, last_error_command, last_error_message,
> > last_
On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 3:25 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 7:41 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 12:26 PM Amit Kapila
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 7:12 PM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
account by ReorderBufferChangeSize().
I guess that the purpose of these values is to compare them to
total_bytes, stream_byte, and spill_bytes but if the calculation is
not accurate, does it mean that the more stats are updated, the more
the stats will be getting inaccurate?
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/
se this
problem, the next message will also be reported soon, fixing it soon,
as Amit mentioned. Also, IIUC once we have the shared memory based
stats collector, we won’t need to worry about this problem. Given that
this kind of problem potentially exists also in other stats views that
have timestamp
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 7:46 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 12:01 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 11:43 PM vignesh C wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 2:48 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > > wrote:
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 12:43 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> On Tues, Nov 16, 2021 2:31 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > Right. I've fixed this issue and attached an updated patch.
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for updating the patch.
> Here are few comments.
Thank y
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 5:45 PM tanghy.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 2:31 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > Right. I've fixed this issue and attached an updated patch.
> >
> >
>
> Thanks for your patch.
>
> I read the
docs page
> > [2].
>
> Nice catch.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > +
>
> To make it analogous with how CREATE/ALTER for SUBSCRIPTION and PUBLICATION
> reference each other, there should IMO be another xref to ALTER SUBSCRIPTION
> as
> well.
+1
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 3:52 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 12:01 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 11:43 PM vignesh C wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 2:48 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > > wrote:
On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 8:45 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 12:38 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > I've updated the patch so that ProcArrayInstallRestoredXmin() sets
> > both xmin and statusFlags only when the source proc is still running
> &
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 1:58 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 9:13 AM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tues, Nov 16, 2021 2:31 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > 2)
> > +
> > +
> > + subrelid oid
>
t introduces
pg_stat_subscription_workers view?
---
I think that exporting PartitionTupleRouting should not be done in the
one patch together with renaming the view columns. There is not
relevance between them at all. If it's used by v12-0002 patch, I think
it should be included in that patch or in another separate patch.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/
On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 12:02 AM wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> On Tuesday, August 24th, 2021 at 13:20, Ranier Vilela
> wrote:
>
> > Em ter., 24 de ago. de 2021 às 03:11, Masahiko Sawada
> > escreveu:
> >
> > >
On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 11:43 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 2:48 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 4:49 PM Greg Nancarrow wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 1:49 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > > wrote:
&
On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 11:38 AM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> On Thur, Nov 11, 2021 10:41 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > I've attached a draft patch that refactors parallel vacuum and separates
> > parallel-vacuum-related code to new file vacuumparallel.c.
> > After
On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 8:04 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 2:01 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 6:38 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 8:11 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > > wrote
On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 4:49 PM Greg Nancarrow wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 1:49 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > I've attached an updated patch that incorporates all comments I got so
> > far. Please review it.
> >
>
> Thanks for the updated patch.
On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 6:38 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 8:11 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > I've attached a draft patch that refactors parallel vacuum and
> > separates parallel-vacuum-related code to new file vacuumparallel.c.
> >
On Sat, Nov 13, 2021 at 2:10 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 6:44 PM Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> >
> > On 2021-Nov-11, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 12:53 PM Amit Kapila
> > > wrote:
> > > &
aster/postmaster.h"
> +#include "replication/logicalproto.h"
> #include "replication/slot.h"
> #include "storage/proc.h"
Removed;
>
> 7) There is an extra ";", We can remove one ";" from below:
> + PgStat_StatSubWorkerKey key;
> + boolfound;
> + HASHACTION action = (create ? HASH_ENTER : HASH_FIND);;
> +
> + key.subid = subid;
> + key.subrelid = subrelid;
Fixed.
I've attached an updated patch that incorporates all comments I got so
far. Please review it.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/
v21-0001-Add-a-subscription-worker-statistics-view-pg_sta.patch
Description: Binary data
On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 3:07 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Sun, Nov 7, 2021 at 7:50 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > I've attached an updated patch. In this version patch, subscription
> > worker statistics are collected per-database and handled in a similar
> > way to table
On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 4:10 PM Greg Nancarrow wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 1:20 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > I've attached an updated patch. In this version patch, subscription
> > worker statistics are collected per-database and handled in a similar
> >
On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 3:07 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 10:40 AM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 12:53 PM Amit Kapila
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 9:11 AM Andres Freund wrote:
>
case, it’d be better to log the
message on failure with the request memory size (or whatever reason
for the failure). That is, we end up logging such a message on failure
when huge_pages = on/try.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/
On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 12:53 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 9:11 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2021-11-11 12:22:42 +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > > > 2.
> > > > LWLockAcquire(ProcArrayLock, L
On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 6:14 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 11:08 AM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 9:27 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> >
> > I agree to copy statusFlags in ProcArrayInstallRestoredXmin().
On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 9:53 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 4:00 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2021-11-01 10:44:34 +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > > On Sun, Oct 31, 2021 at 6:21 AM Andres Freund wrote:
>
1001 - 1100 of 2774 matches
Mail list logo
