Hello,
01.02.2024 21:20, vignesh C wrote:
The patch which you submitted has been awaiting your attention for
quite some time now. As such, we have moved it to "Returned with
Feedback" and removed it from the reviewing queue. Depending on
timing, this may be reversible. Kindly address the
On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 at 19:55, vignesh C wrote:
>
> On Thu, 9 Feb 2023 at 12:02, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 1:13 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 1:19 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 2023-02-01 11:23:57 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
On Thu, 9 Feb 2023 at 12:02, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 1:13 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 1:19 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2023-02-01 11:23:57 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 6:08 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > > >
This thread has gone for about a year here without making any
progress, which isn't great.
On Tue, Feb 7, 2023 at 2:49 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> Hm. It's worrysome to now hold ProcArrayLock exclusively while iterating over
> the slots. ReplicationSlotsComputeRequiredXmin() can be called at a
>
> On 9 Feb 2023, at 07:32, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> I've attached the patch of this idea for discussion.
Amit, Andres: have you had a chance to look at the updated version of this
patch?
--
Daniel Gustafsson
On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 1:13 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 1:19 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> >
> > On 2023-02-01 11:23:57 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 6:08 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Attached updated patches.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 1:35 AM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> On 2023-02-07 11:49:03 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2023-02-01 11:23:57 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 6:08 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Attached updated patches.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 1:19 AM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> On 2023-02-01 11:23:57 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 6:08 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Attached updated patches.
> > >
> >
> > Thanks, Andres, others, do you see a better way to fix this problem? I
> >
Hi,
On 2023-02-07 11:49:03 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2023-02-01 11:23:57 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 6:08 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Attached updated patches.
> > >
> >
> > Thanks, Andres, others, do you see a better way to fix this problem? I
> >
Hi,
On 2023-02-01 11:23:57 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 6:08 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > Attached updated patches.
> >
>
> Thanks, Andres, others, do you see a better way to fix this problem? I
> have reproduced it manually and the steps are shared at [1] and
>
On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 6:08 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> Attached updated patches.
>
In back-branch patches, the change is as below:
+ *
+ * NB: the caller must hold ProcArrayLock in an exclusive mode regardless of
+ * already_locked which is unused now but kept for ABI compatibility.
*/
On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 6:08 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> Attached updated patches.
>
Thanks, Andres, others, do you see a better way to fix this problem? I
have reproduced it manually and the steps are shared at [1] and
Sawada-San also reproduced it, see [2].
[1] -
On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 3:59 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 3:56 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 11:12 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 9:41 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > I've attached patches for
On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 3:56 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 11:12 AM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 9:41 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> >
> > I've attached patches for HEAD and backbranches. Please review them.
> >
>
> Shall we add a comment like
On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 11:12 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 9:41 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> I've attached patches for HEAD and backbranches. Please review them.
>
Shall we add a comment like the one below in
ReplicationSlotsComputeRequiredXmin()?
diff --git
On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 9:41 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 8:30 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 4:31 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Thank you for making the patch! I'm still considering whether this
> > > approach is
> > >
On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 8:24 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 8:17 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 4:31 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > One idea to fix this issue is that in
> > ReplicationSlotsComputeRequiredXmin(), we compute the minimum xmin
> > while
On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 8:30 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 4:31 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you for making the patch! I'm still considering whether this approach
> > is
> > correct, but I can put a comment to your patch anyway.
> >
> > ```
> > -
On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 4:31 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> Thank you for making the patch! I'm still considering whether this approach is
> correct, but I can put a comment to your patch anyway.
>
> ```
> - Assert(!already_locked || LWLockHeldByMe(ProcArrayLock));
> -
> - if
On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 11:34 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> I have reproduced it manually. For this, I had to manually make the
> debugger call ReplicationSlotsComputeRequiredXmin(false) via path
> SnapBuildProcessRunningXacts()->LogicalIncreaseXminForSlot()->LogicalConfirmReceivedLocation()
>
On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 8:17 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 4:31 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> One idea to fix this issue is that in
> ReplicationSlotsComputeRequiredXmin(), we compute the minimum xmin
> while holding both ProcArrayLock and ReplicationSlotControlLock, and
>
On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 10:27 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2023 at 9:15 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 11:54 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Amit, Sawada-san,
> > >
> > > I have also reproduced the failure on PG15 with some debug
On Sun, Jan 29, 2023 at 9:15 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 11:54 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Amit, Sawada-san,
> >
> > I have also reproduced the failure on PG15 with some debug log, and I
> > agreed that
> > somebody changed
On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 11:54 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> Dear Amit, Sawada-san,
>
> I have also reproduced the failure on PG15 with some debug log, and I agreed
> that
> somebody changed procArray->replication_slot_xmin to InvalidTransactionId.
>
> > > The same assertion failure has
Dear Amit, Sawada-san,
I have also reproduced the failure on PG15 with some debug log, and I agreed
that
somebody changed procArray->replication_slot_xmin to InvalidTransactionId.
> > The same assertion failure has been reported on another thread[1].
> > Since I could reproduce this issue
Dear Sawada-san,
Thank you for making the patch! I'm still considering whether this approach is
correct, but I can put a comment to your patch anyway.
```
- Assert(!already_locked || LWLockHeldByMe(ProcArrayLock));
-
- if (!already_locked)
- LWLockAcquire(ProcArrayLock,
On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 8:17 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> The same assertion failure has been reported on another thread[1].
> Since I could reproduce this issue several times in my environment
> I've investigated the root cause.
>
> I think there is a race condition of updating
>
On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 4:31 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Sat, Nov 19, 2022 at 6:35 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> >
> > On 2022-11-18 11:20:36 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > Okay, updated the patch accordingly.
> >
> > Assuming it passes tests etc, this'd work for me.
> >
>
> Thanks, Pushed.
The
On Sat, Nov 19, 2022 at 6:35 AM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> On 2022-11-18 11:20:36 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > Okay, updated the patch accordingly.
>
> Assuming it passes tests etc, this'd work for me.
>
Thanks, Pushed.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
Hi,
On 2022-11-18 11:20:36 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Okay, updated the patch accordingly.
Assuming it passes tests etc, this'd work for me.
- Andres
On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 11:15 PM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> On 2022-11-17 10:44:18 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 11:56 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > > On 2022-11-16 14:22:01 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 7:30 AM Andres Freund
> > > > wrote:
> > >
Hi,
On 2022-11-17 10:44:18 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 11:56 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2022-11-16 14:22:01 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 7:30 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> > > > On 2022-11-15 16:20:00 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > > > On Tue,
On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 11:56 PM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> On 2022-11-16 14:22:01 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 7:30 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2022-11-15 16:20:00 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 8:08 AM Andres Freund
> > > > wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 11:56 PM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> On 2022-11-16 14:22:01 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 7:30 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2022-11-15 16:20:00 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 8:08 AM Andres Freund
> > > > wrote:
Hi,
On 2022-11-16 14:22:01 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 7:30 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> >
> > On 2022-11-15 16:20:00 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 8:08 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> > > > nor do we enforce in an obvious place that we
> > > > don't
On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 7:30 AM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> On 2022-11-15 16:20:00 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 8:08 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> > > nor do we enforce in an obvious place that we
> > > don't already hold a snapshot.
> > >
> >
> > We have a check for
Hi,
On 2022-11-15 16:20:00 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 8:08 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> > nor do we enforce in an obvious place that we
> > don't already hold a snapshot.
> >
>
> We have a check for (FirstXactSnapshot == NULL) in
>
On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 6:55 AM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> On 2022-11-10 16:04:40 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > I don't have any good ideas on how to proceed with this. Any thoughts
> > on this would be helpful?
>
> One thing worth doing might be to convert the assertion path into an elog(),
>
On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 8:08 AM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> On 2022-11-14 17:25:31 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Hm, also, shouldn't the patch adding CRS_USE_SNAPSHOT have copied more of
> > SnapBuildExportSnapshot()? Why aren't the error checks for
> > SnapBuildExportSnapshot() needed? Why don't
Hi,
On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 10:26 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2022-11-10 16:04:40 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > I don't have any good ideas on how to proceed with this. Any thoughts
> > on this would be helpful?
>
> One thing worth doing might be to convert the assertion path into an
On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 3:38 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2022-11-14 17:25:31 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> Another theory: I dimly remember Thomas mentioning that there's some different
> behaviour of xlogreader during shutdown as part of the v15 changes. I don't
> quite remember what the
Hi,
On 2022-11-14 17:25:31 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hm, also, shouldn't the patch adding CRS_USE_SNAPSHOT have copied more of
> SnapBuildExportSnapshot()? Why aren't the error checks for
> SnapBuildExportSnapshot() needed? Why don't we need to set XactReadOnly? Which
> transactions are we
Hi,
On 2022-11-10 16:04:40 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> I don't have any good ideas on how to proceed with this. Any thoughts
> on this would be helpful?
One thing worth doing might be to convert the assertion path into an elog(),
mentioning both xids (or add a framework for things like
43 matches
Mail list logo
