Re: [HACKERS] SERIALIZABLE with parallel query

On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 10:17 AM Thomas Munro wrote: > On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 10:15 AM Kevin Grittner wrote: > > It applies and builds clean, it passed make world with cassert and TAP > > tests, and I can't see any remaining flaws. This is true both of just > > the 0001 v16 patch and that with

Re: [HACKERS] SERIALIZABLE with parallel query

On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 9:40 PM Thomas Munro wrote: > Rebased. It applies and builds clean, it passed make world with cassert and TAP tests, and I can't see any remaining flaws. This is true both of just the 0001 v16 patch and that with 0002 v16 applied on top of it. It would be great if

Re: [HACKERS] SERIALIZABLE with parallel query

On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 4:53 PM Thomas Munro wrote: > Thanks for the review! And sorry for my delayed response. Here is a > rebased patch, with changes as requested. Rebased. -- Thomas Munro http://www.enterprisedb.com 0001-Enable-parallel-query-with-SERIALIZABLE-isolatio-v16.patch

Re: [HACKERS] SERIALIZABLE with parallel query

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 9:50 AM Kevin Grittner wrote: > On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 8:58 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote: > > I looked at this patches. The latest patch can build without any > > errors and warnings and pass all regression tests. I don't see > > critical bugs but there are random comments.

Re: [HACKERS] SERIALIZABLE with parallel query

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 04:50:40PM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote: > I will spend a few more days in testing and review, but figured I > should pass along "first impressions" now. Kevin, it seems that this patch is pending on your input. I have moved this patch to next CF for now. -- Michael

Re: [HACKERS] SERIALIZABLE with parallel query

After reviewing the thread and the current two patches, I agree with Masahiko Sawada plus preferring one adjustment to the coding: I would prefer to break out the majority of the ReleasePredicateLocks function to a static ReleasePredicateLocksMain (or similar) function and eliminating the goto.

Re: [HACKERS] SERIALIZABLE with parallel query

On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 3:12 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 7:28 PM, Thomas Munro > wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 7:55 PM, Masahiko Sawada >> wrote: >>> I'd like to test and review this patches but they seem to conflict >>> with current HEAD. Could you please rebase

Re: [HACKERS] SERIALIZABLE with parallel query

On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 7:28 PM, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 7:55 PM, Masahiko Sawada > wrote: >> I'd like to test and review this patches but they seem to conflict >> with current HEAD. Could you please rebase them? > > Hi Sawada-san, > > Thanks! Rebased and attached. The

Re: [HACKERS] SERIALIZABLE with parallel query

On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 7:55 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > I'd like to test and review this patches but they seem to conflict > with current HEAD. Could you please rebase them? Hi Sawada-san, Thanks! Rebased and attached. The only changes are: the LWLock tranche is now shown as

Re: [HACKERS] SERIALIZABLE with parallel query

On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 2:56 PM, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:28 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> +SerializableXactHandle >> +ShareSerializableXact(void) >> +{ >> +Assert(!IsParallelWorker()); >> + >> +return MySerializableXact; >> +} >> >> Uh, how's that OK? There's no rule

Re: [HACKERS] SERIALIZABLE with parallel query

On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:28 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > +SerializableXactHandle > +ShareSerializableXact(void) > +{ > +Assert(!IsParallelWorker()); > + > +return MySerializableXact; > +} > > Uh, how's that OK? There's no rule that you can't create a > ParallelContext

Re: [HACKERS] SERIALIZABLE with parallel query

On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 6:37 PM, Thomas Munro wrote: > I've now broken it into two patches. Rebased. -- Thomas Munro http://www.enterprisedb.com 0001-Enable-parallel-query-with-SERIALIZABLE-isolatio-v13.patch Description: Binary data

Re: [HACKERS] SERIALIZABLE with parallel query

On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 12:04 AM, Thomas Munro wrote: > I'm testing another version that is a lot simpler: like v10, it relies > on the knowledge that the leader's transaction will always end after > the workers have finished, but it handles the RO_SAFE optimisation

Re: [HACKERS] SERIALIZABLE with parallel query

On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 6:05 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 7:54 AM, Thomas Munro > wrote:> >> The best solution I have come up with so far is to add a reference >> count to SERIALIZABLEXACT. I toyed with putting the

Re: [HACKERS] SERIALIZABLE with parallel query

On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 7:56 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 8:48 AM, Thomas Munro > wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 3:29 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: >>> By the way, in which case leader can exit

Re: [HACKERS] SERIALIZABLE with parallel query

On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 8:48 AM, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 3:29 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 10:35 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 7:54 AM, Thomas Munro

Re: [HACKERS] SERIALIZABLE with parallel query

On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 3:29 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 10:35 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 7:54 AM, Thomas Munro >>> PS I noticed that for BecomeLockGroupMember() we say "If we can't >>> join the lock

Re: [HACKERS] SERIALIZABLE with parallel query

On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 10:35 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 7:54 AM, Thomas Munro >> PS I noticed that for BecomeLockGroupMember() we say "If we can't >> join the lock group, the leader has gone away, so just exit quietly" >> but for various other

Re: [HACKERS] SERIALIZABLE with parallel query

On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 7:54 AM, Thomas Munro wrote:> > The best solution I have come up with so far is to add a reference > count to SERIALIZABLEXACT. I toyed with putting the refcount into the > DSM instead, but then I ran into problems making that work when you

Re: [HACKERS] SERIALIZABLE with parallel query

On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 4:24 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > I took a look at this today and thought it might be OK to commit, Thank you for looking at this! > modulo a few minor issues: (1) you didn't document the new tranche and Fixed. > (2) I prefer to avoid if (blah) {

Re: [HACKERS] SERIALIZABLE with parallel query

On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 7:39 PM, Thomas Munro wrote: > This started crashing some time yesterday with an assertion failure in > the isolation tests after commit 2badb5af landed. Reordering of code > in parallel.c confused patch's fuzz heuristics leading >

Re: [HACKERS] SERIALIZABLE with parallel query

On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Haribabu Kommi > wrote: >> Thanks for explaining the problem in generating an isolation test to >> test the serialize parallel query. >> >> Committer

Re: [HACKERS] SERIALIZABLE with parallel query

On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > Thanks for explaining the problem in generating an isolation test to > test the serialize parallel query. > > Committer can decide whether existing test is fine to part of the test suite > or remove it, other than

Re: [HACKERS] SERIALIZABLE with parallel query

On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 11:33 AM, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 2:44 PM, Thomas Munro > wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Michael Paquier > > wrote: > >> Could this question be

Re: [HACKERS] SERIALIZABLE with parallel query

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 2:44 PM, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> Could this question be answered? The patch still applies so I am >> moving it to next CF. Rebased, 'cause it broke. --

Re: [HACKERS] SERIALIZABLE with parallel query

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 4:41 PM, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 6:57 PM, Thomas Munro < > thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 8:37 PM, Haribabu Kommi >> wrote: >> > After I tune the GUC to go