On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 2:11 AM, Amit Khandekar wrote:
> Attached is the patch accordingly.
OK, I see. That makes sense; committed.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On 7 February 2018 at 07:30, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
> At Tue, 6 Feb 2018 13:50:28 -0500, Robert Haas wrote
> in
>> On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 11:32 AM, Amit Khandekar
>> wrote:
>> > Yeah, I think it looks equally good that way, and like you said, the
>> > current code does it that way. So in th
At Tue, 6 Feb 2018 13:50:28 -0500, Robert Haas wrote in
> On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 11:32 AM, Amit Khandekar
> wrote:
> > Yeah, I think it looks equally good that way, and like you said, the
> > current code does it that way. So in the attached patch, I have
> > swapped the two conditions.
>
> I
On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 11:32 AM, Amit Khandekar wrote:
> Yeah, I think it looks equally good that way, and like you said, the
> current code does it that way. So in the attached patch, I have
> swapped the two conditions.
I prefer to avoid introducing 2 new variables and instead just prevent
the
On 6 February 2018 at 16:11, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
> Thanks for the explanation. I'm fine with it. Well may I make
> some comments on the patch?
Sure, always welcome.
>
> - It seems to me that the if (!should_warp_around) block and else
> block are better be transposed so that make the bail
At Tue, 6 Feb 2018 11:56:27 +0530, Amit Khandekar
wrote in
> On 6 February 2018 at 10:11, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> wrote:
> >> At Mon, 5 Feb 2018 15:29:27 +0530, Amit Khandekar
> >> wrote in
> >> > Attached is a patch that fixes this issue on the above lines.
> >>
> >> The patch adds two new varia
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 3:29 PM, Amit Khandekar
wrote:
>
> Attached is a patch that fixes this issue on the above lines.
>
Patch applied cleanly and work fine for me. mentioned issue is not
reproducible now.
Thanks & Regards,
Rajkumar Raghuwanshi
QMG, EnterpriseDB Corporation
On 6 February 2018 at 10:11, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
>> At Mon, 5 Feb 2018 15:29:27 +0530, Amit Khandekar
>> wrote in
>> > Attached is a patch that fixes this issue on the above lines.
>>
>> The patch adds two new variables and always sets them but warp
>> around can happen at most once per cal
At Tue, 06 Feb 2018 13:34:19 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote in
<20180206.133419.02213593.horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp>
> At Mon, 5 Feb 2018 15:29:27 +0530, Amit Khandekar
> wrote in
> > On 2 February 2018 at 20:46, Robert Haas wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 1:43
At Mon, 5 Feb 2018 15:29:27 +0530, Amit Khandekar
wrote in
> On 2 February 2018 at 20:46, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 1:43 AM, Amit Khandekar
> > wrote:
> >> The query is actually hanging because one of the workers is in a small
> >> loop where it iterates over the subplans
On 2 February 2018 at 20:46, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 1:43 AM, Amit Khandekar wrote:
>> The query is actually hanging because one of the workers is in a small
>> loop where it iterates over the subplans searching for unfinished
>> plans, and it never comes out of the loop (it's
Please forgive my inexperience with the codebase, but as the guy who
reported this bugger:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/151724453314.1238.409882538067070269%40wrigleys.postgresql.org#151724453314.1238.409882538067070...@wrigleys.postgresql.org,
I thought I'd follow your hints, as it's
On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 1:43 AM, Amit Khandekar wrote:
> On 2 February 2018 at 03:50, Thomas Munro
> wrote:
>> Whatever logic bug might be causing the query to hang, it's not good
>> that we're unable to SIGINT/SIGTERM our way out of this state. See
>> also this other bug report for a known prob
On 2 February 2018 at 03:50, Thomas Munro wrote:
> Whatever logic bug might be causing the query to hang, it's not good
> that we're unable to SIGINT/SIGTERM our way out of this state. See
> also this other bug report for a known problem (already fixed but not
> yet released), but which came with
On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 11:29 PM, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi
wrote:
> I am getting server hang kind of issue with the below postgres.conf setup.
> Issue may occur while running below query single/multiple times (random).
> Not getting terminal back even after cancelling query.
> explain output and query
Thanks Rajkumar for catching this. I will have a look ...
--
Thanks,
-Amit Khandekar
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company
Hi,
I am getting server hang kind of issue with the below postgres.conf setup.
Issue may occur while running below query single/multiple times (random).
Not getting terminal back even after cancelling query.
explain output and query is given below.
SET enable_hashjoin TO off;
SET enable_nestloop
17 matches
Mail list logo
