On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 7:28 PM Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> The parallel-abort patch received a review from David, and I addressed
> his comments. Also, he tested with the patch, and showed that it
> reduces time taken to abort remote transactions. So, if there are no
> objections, I will commit the
On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 8:06 PM Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> I rebased the patch. Attached is an updated patch.
The parallel-abort patch received a review from David, and I addressed
his comments. Also, he tested with the patch, and showed that it
reduces time taken to abort remote transactions.
Hi Vignesh,
On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 9:19 PM vignesh C wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Nov 2022 at 15:54, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> > Attached is a rebased version of the patch.
>
> The patch does not apply on top of HEAD as in [1], please post a rebased
> patch:
I rebased the patch. Attached is an updated
On Tue, 1 Nov 2022 at 15:54, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>
> Hi David,
>
> On Sat, Oct 1, 2022 at 5:54 AM David Zhang wrote:
> > After rebase the file `postgres_fdw.out` and applied to master branch,
> > make and make check are all ok for postgres_fdw.
>
> Thanks for testing! Attached is a rebased
Hi David,
On Sat, Oct 1, 2022 at 5:54 AM David Zhang wrote:
> After rebase the file `postgres_fdw.out` and applied to master branch,
> make and make check are all ok for postgres_fdw.
Thanks for testing! Attached is a rebased version of the patch.
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
Hi Etsuro,
The patch needs rebase due to commits 4036bcbbb, 8c8d307f8 and
82699edbf, so I updated the patch. Attached is a new version, in
which I also tweaked comments a little bit.
After rebase the file `postgres_fdw.out` and applied to master branch,
make and make check are all ok for
Hi Jacob,
On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 3:50 AM Jacob Champion wrote:
> On 5/12/22 01:46, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> > On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 7:39 PM Etsuro Fujita
> > wrote:
> >> I’m planning to commit this as a follow-up patch for commit 04e706d42.
> >
> > Done.
>
> FYI, I think cfbot is confused
On 5/12/22 01:46, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 7:39 PM Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>> I’m planning to commit this as a follow-up patch for commit 04e706d42.
>
> Done.
FYI, I think cfbot is confused about the patch under review here. (When
I first opened the thread I thought the patch
On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 7:39 PM Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 7:08 PM Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 4:55 AM David Zhang
> > > > wrote:
> > > >> + * remote server in parallel at (sub)transaction end.
>
> > I noticed that the comment failed to mention
On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 7:08 PM Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 4:55 AM David Zhang wrote:
> > >> + * remote server in parallel at (sub)transaction end.
> I noticed that the comment failed to mention that the
> parallel_commit option is disabled by default. Also, I
On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 6:39 AM David Zhang wrote:
> On 2022-05-02 1:25 a.m., Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 4:55 AM David Zhang wrote:
> >> I tried to apply the patch to master and plan to run some tests, but got
> >> below errors due to other commits.
> > I rebased the patch
Thanks a lot for the patch update.
On 2022-05-02 1:25 a.m., Etsuro Fujita wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 4:55 AM David Zhang wrote:
I tried to apply the patch to master and plan to run some tests, but got
below errors due to other commits.
I rebased the patch against HEAD. Attached is
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 4:55 AM David Zhang wrote:
> I tried to apply the patch to master and plan to run some tests, but got
> below errors due to other commits.
I rebased the patch against HEAD. Attached is an updated patch.
> + * remote server in parallel at (sub)transaction end.
>
I tried to apply the patch to master and plan to run some tests, but got
below errors due to other commits.
$ git apply --check
v7-0003-postgres-fdw-Add-support-for-parallel-abort.patch
error: patch failed: doc/src/sgml/postgres-fdw.sgml:479
error: doc/src/sgml/postgres-fdw.sgml: patch does
On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 1:34 PM Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> Attached is a new patch set. The new version of 0002 is just a
> cleanup patch (see the commit message in 0002), and I think it's
> committable, so I'm planning to commit it, if no objections.
Done.
Attached is the 0003 patch, which is the
On Sat, Mar 5, 2022 at 7:32 PM Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> Attached is an updated version.
In the 0002 patch I introduced a macro for building an abort command
in preparation for the parallel abort patch (0003), but I moved it to
0003. Attached is a new patch set. The new version of 0002 is just a
On Sat, Mar 12, 2022 at 10:02 AM David Zhang wrote:
> Applied patches v6-0002 and v6-0003 to master branch, and the `make check`
> test is ok.
>
> Here is my test result in 10 times average on 3 virtual machines:
> before the patches:
>
> abort.1 = 2.5473 ms
>
> abort.2 = 4.1572 ms
>
> after the
Applied patches v6-0002 and v6-0003 to master branch, and the `make
check` test is ok.
Here is my test result in 10 times average on 3 virtual machines:
before the patches:
abort.1 = 2.5473 ms
abort.2 = 4.1572 ms
after the patches with OPTIONS (ADD parallel_abort 'true'):
abort.1 =
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 6:53 PM Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> Here is an updated version. I added to the 0003 patch a macro for
> defining the milliseconds to wait, as proposed by David upthread.
I modified the 0003 patch further: 1) I added to
pgfdw_cancel_query_end/pgfdw_exec_cleanup_query_end the
On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 2:49 PM Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> I think the 0003 patch needs rebase.
> I'll update the patch.
Here is an updated version. I added to the 0003 patch a macro for
defining the milliseconds to wait, as proposed by David upthread.
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 3:30 PM Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> Attached is an updated patch.
> Barring objections, I’ll commit
> the patch.
I have committed the patch. I think the 0003 patch needs rebase.
I'll update the patch.
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 1:03 AM Fujii Masao wrote:
> On 2022/02/21 14:45, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 1:46 AM Fujii Masao
> > wrote:
> >> I reviewed 0001 patch. It looks good to me except the following minor
> >> things. If these are addressed, I think that the 001 patch
On 2022/02/21 14:45, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 1:46 AM Fujii Masao wrote:
I reviewed 0001 patch. It looks good to me except the following minor things.
If these are addressed, I think that the 001 patch can be marked as ready for
committer.
OK
+* Also
On Sat, Feb 19, 2022 at 6:55 AM David Zhang wrote:
> Tried to apply the patches to master branch, no warning found and
> regression test passed.
Thanks for testing!
> Now, we have many places (5) calling the same function with a constant
> number 3. Is this a good time to consider redefine
On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 1:46 AM Fujii Masao wrote:
> I reviewed 0001 patch. It looks good to me except the following minor things.
> If these are addressed, I think that the 001 patch can be marked as ready for
> committer.
OK
> +* Also determine to commit (sub)transactions opened on
Thanks a lot for updating the patch.
Tried to apply the patches to master branch, no warning found and
regression test passed.
Now, we have many places (5) calling the same function with a constant
number 3. Is this a good time to consider redefine this number a
macro somewhere?
Thank
On 2022/02/11 21:59, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
I tweaked comments/docs a little bit as well.
Thanks for updating the patches!
I reviewed 0001 patch. It looks good to me except the following minor things.
If these are addressed, I think that the 001 patch can be marked as ready for
committer.
On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 3:49 AM Fujii Masao wrote:
> Here are the review comments for 0001 patch.
>
> I got the following compiler warning.
>
> [16:58:07.120] connection.c: In function ‘pgfdw_finish_pre_commit_cleanup’:
> [16:58:07.120] connection.c:1726:4: error: ISO C90 forbids mixed
On 2022/02/07 14:35, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
0001 patch failed to be applied. Could you rebase the patch?
Done. Attached is an updated version of the patch set.
Thanks for updating the patch! Here are the review comments for 0001 patch.
I got the following compiler warning.
[16:58:07.120]
Hi Julien,
On Sun, Jan 16, 2022 at 1:07 PM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 06, 2022 at 05:29:23PM +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> > Done. Attached is a new version.
> I also see that Fuji-san raised some questions, so for now I will simply
> change
> the patch status to Waiting on Author.
On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 11:54 AM Fujii Masao
wrote:
> At first I'm reading the 0001 patch. Here are the comments for the patch.
Thanks for reviewing!
> 0001 patch failed to be applied. Could you rebase the patch?
Done. Attached is an updated version of the patch set.
> +
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 06, 2022 at 05:29:23PM +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>
> Done. Attached is a new version.
The patchset doesn't apply anymore:
http://cfbot.cputube.org/patch_36_3392.log
=== Applying patches on top of PostgreSQL commit ID
43c2175121c829c8591fc5117b725f1f22bfb670 ===
=== applying
On 2022/01/06 17:29, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 6:07 PM Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2021/11/16 18:55, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
I changed my mind; I’ll update the patch to ignore the error as
before, because 1) as far as I know, there are no reports from the
field concerning that we
On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 6:07 PM Fujii Masao wrote:
> On 2021/11/16 18:55, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> > I changed my mind; I’ll update the patch to ignore the error as
> > before, because 1) as far as I know, there are no reports from the
> > field concerning that we ignore all kinds of errors in
On 2021/11/16 18:55, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
I changed my mind; I’ll update the patch to ignore the error as
before, because 1) as far as I know, there are no reports from the
field concerning that we ignore all kinds of errors in cleaning up the
prepared statements, so maybe we don’t need to
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 1:09 PM Fujii Masao wrote:
> On 2021/11/16 18:55, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> > Sorry, my explanation was not enough, but I don’t think this is always
> > true. Let me explain using an example:
> >
> > create server loopback foreign data wrapper postgres_fdw options
> >
On 2021/11/16 18:55, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
Sorry, my explanation was not enough, but I don’t think this is always
true. Let me explain using an example:
create server loopback foreign data wrapper postgres_fdw options
(dbname 'postgres', parallel_commit 'true');
create user mapping for
Kuroda-san,
On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 11:27 AM kuroda.hay...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
> I love your proposal because it will remove a bottleneck
> for PostgreSQL build-in sharding.
>
> I read your patch briefly and I think basically it's good.
Great! Thanks for reviewing!
> Currently I have only one
On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 1:13 PM Fujii Masao wrote:
> On 2021/11/07 18:06, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 3:22 PM Fujii Masao
> > wrote:
> >> Could you tell me why the parameter is necessary?
> >> Can't we always enable the feature?
> > I think it might be OK to enable it by
> >
Dear Fujita-san,
I love your proposal because it will remove a bottleneck
for PostgreSQL build-in sharding.
I read your patch briefly and I think basically it's good.
Currently I have only one comment.
In your patch, postgres_fdw sends a COMMIT command to all entries in the hash
table
and
On 2021/11/07 18:06, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 3:22 PM Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2021/10/31 18:05, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
The patch is pretty simple: if a server option added
by the patch “parallel_commit” is enabled,
Could you tell me why the parameter is necessary?
Can't we
On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 7:47 AM David Zhang wrote:
> Followed your instructions, I performed some basic tests to compare the
> performance between before and after. In my testing environment (two
> foreign servers on the same local machine), the performance varies,
> sometimes the time spent on
On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 3:22 PM Fujii Masao wrote:
> On 2021/10/31 18:05, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> > The patch is pretty simple: if a server option added
> > by the patch “parallel_commit” is enabled,
>
> Could you tell me why the parameter is necessary?
> Can't we always enable the feature?
I
I evaluated the effectiveness of the patch using a simple
multi-statement transaction:
BEGIN;
SAVEPOINT s;
INSERT INTO ft1 VALUES (10, 10);
INSERT INTO ft2 VALUES (20, 20);
RELEASE SAVEPOINT s;
COMMIT;
where ft1 and ft2 are foreign tables created on different foreign
servers hosted on different
On 2021/10/31 18:05, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
Hi,
As I said before [1], I’m working on $SUBJECT. Attached is a WIP
patch for that.
Thanks for the patch!
The patch is pretty simple: if a server option added
by the patch “parallel_commit” is enabled,
Could you tell me why the parameter is
Hi,
As I said before [1], I’m working on $SUBJECT. Attached is a WIP
patch for that. The patch is pretty simple: if a server option added
by the patch “parallel_commit” is enabled, 1) asynchronously send
COMMIT TRANSACTION (RELEASE SAVEPOINT) to all remote servers involved
in a local
46 matches
Mail list logo
