At Wed, 27 Jan 2021 23:10:53 -0800, Noah Misch wrote in
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 12:06:27PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > At Wed, 27 Jan 2021 02:48:48 -0800, Noah Misch wrote in
> > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 01:23:36AM -0800, Noah Misch wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 06:02:11PM
On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 12:06:27PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> At Wed, 27 Jan 2021 02:48:48 -0800, Noah Misch wrote in
> > On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 01:23:36AM -0800, Noah Misch wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 06:02:11PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > > > Perhaps I'm missing
At Wed, 27 Jan 2021 02:48:48 -0800, Noah Misch wrote in
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 01:23:36AM -0800, Noah Misch wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 06:02:11PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > > Perhaps I'm missing something, but the patch doesn't pass the v5-0001
> > > test with
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 01:23:36AM -0800, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 06:02:11PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > At Thu, 21 Jan 2021 00:19:58 -0800, Noah Misch wrote in
> > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 12:28:44AM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > > > However, with the previous
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 06:02:11PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> At Thu, 21 Jan 2021 00:19:58 -0800, Noah Misch wrote in
> > On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 12:28:44AM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > > However, with the previous patch, two existing tests sto_using_cursor
> > > and
At Thu, 21 Jan 2021 00:19:58 -0800, Noah Misch wrote in
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 12:28:44AM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > At Wed, 20 Jan 2021 17:34:44 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi
> > wrote in
> > > Anyway, it seems actually dangerous that cause pruning on wal-skipped
> > > relation.
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 12:28:44AM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> At Wed, 20 Jan 2021 17:34:44 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi
> wrote in
> > Anyway, it seems actually dangerous that cause pruning on wal-skipped
> > relation.
> >
> > > with your patch versions. Could you try implementing
At Wed, 20 Jan 2021 17:34:44 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote in
> Anyway, it seems actually dangerous that cause pruning on wal-skipped
> relation.
>
> > with your patch versions. Could you try implementing both test procedures
> > in
> > src/test/modules/snapshot_too_old? There's no
At Tue, 19 Jan 2021 01:31:52 -0800, Noah Misch wrote in
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 01:48:31PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > I understand that you are suggesting that at least
> > TransactionIdLimitedForOldSnapshots should follow not only relation
> > persistence but RelationNeedsWAL, based
On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 01:48:31PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> At Mon, 18 Jan 2021 17:30:22 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi
> wrote in
> > At Sun, 17 Jan 2021 23:02:18 -0800, Noah Misch wrote in
> > > On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 10:36:31PM -0800, Noah Misch wrote:
> > > > I wrote the above
At Mon, 18 Jan 2021 17:30:22 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote in
> At Sun, 17 Jan 2021 23:02:18 -0800, Noah Misch wrote in
> > On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 10:36:31PM -0800, Noah Misch wrote:
> > > I wrote the above based on the "PageGetLSN(page) > (snapshot)->lsn" check
> > > in
> > >
At Sun, 17 Jan 2021 23:02:18 -0800, Noah Misch wrote in
> On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 10:36:31PM -0800, Noah Misch wrote:
> > I wrote the above based on the "PageGetLSN(page) > (snapshot)->lsn" check in
> > TestForOldSnapshot(). If the LSN isn't important, what else explains
> >
On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 10:36:31PM -0800, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 03:08:38PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > At Fri, 15 Jan 2021 20:38:16 -0800, Noah Misch wrote in
> > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 04:07:05PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > > > ---
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 03:08:38PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> At Fri, 15 Jan 2021 20:38:16 -0800, Noah Misch wrote in
> > On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 04:07:05PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > > --- a/src/include/utils/snapmgr.h
> > > +++ b/src/include/utils/snapmgr.h
> > > @@ -37,7 +37,7
Thank you for the comments, Noah and Andres.
At Fri, 15 Jan 2021 20:38:16 -0800, Noah Misch wrote in
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 04:07:05PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > The definition of the macro RelationNeedsWAL has been changed by
> > c6b92041d3 to include conditions related to the
On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 04:07:05PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> The definition of the macro RelationNeedsWAL has been changed by
> c6b92041d3 to include conditions related to the WAL-skip optimization
> but some uses of the macro are not relevant to the optimization. That
> misuses are
Hi,
On 2021-01-13 16:07:05 +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> Commit c6b92041d3 changed the definition of RelationNeedsWAL().
>
> -#define RelationNeedsWAL(relation) \
> - ((relation)->rd_rel->relpersistence == RELPERSISTENCE_PERMANENT)
> +#define RelationNeedsWAL(relation)
Hello.
Commit c6b92041d3 changed the definition of RelationNeedsWAL().
-#define RelationNeedsWAL(relation) \
- ((relation)->rd_rel->relpersistence == RELPERSISTENCE_PERMANENT)
+#define RelationNeedsWAL(relation)
\
18 matches
Mail list logo
