On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 7:47 PM, Teodor Sigaev wrote:
> Thanks to everyone, pushed
>
Thanks!
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Thanks to everyone, pushed
Alexander Korotkov wrote:
On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 6:57 AM, Thomas Munro
mailto:thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com>>
wrote:
My thought experiments about pseudo-pages and avoiding the split stuff
were not intended to get the patch kicked out. I thought for a while
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 4:29 PM, Alexander Korotkov
wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 4:57 PM, Amit Kapila
> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Valid point, I think on split we should always transfer locks from old
>> > bucket to new bucket.
>> >
>>
>> Attached patch changes it as per above suggestion.
>
>
> OK.
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 4:57 PM, Amit Kapila
wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 7:18 PM, Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 12:18 AM, Alexander Korotkov
> > wrote:
> >> On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 2:53 PM, Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 9:27 AM, Thomas Munro
> >
On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 7:18 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 12:18 AM, Alexander Korotkov
> wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 2:53 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 9:27 AM, Thomas Munro
>>> > If that is indeed a race, could it be fixed by
>>> > calling Predi
On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 12:18 AM, Alexander Korotkov
wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 2:53 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 9:27 AM, Thomas Munro
>> > If that is indeed a race, could it be fixed by
>> > calling PredicateLockPageSplit() at the start of _hash_splitbucket()
>> > i
On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 2:53 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 9:27 AM, Thomas Munro
> > If that is indeed a race, could it be fixed by
> > calling PredicateLockPageSplit() at the start of _hash_splitbucket()
> > instead?
> >
>
> Yes, but I think it would be better if we call this o
On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 6:57 AM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> My thought experiments about pseudo-pages and avoiding the split stuff
> were not intended to get the patch kicked out. I thought for a while
> that hash indexes were a special case and could benefit from
> dispensing with those trickier prob
On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 1:10 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:26 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 8:58 AM, Thomas Munro
>> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 12:53 AM, Amit Kapila
>>> wrote:
Yes, but I think it would be better if we call this once we are s
On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:26 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 8:58 AM, Thomas Munro
> wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 12:53 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>> Yes, but I think it would be better if we call this once we are sure
>>> that at least one tuple from the old bucket has been tra
On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 8:58 AM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 12:53 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> Yes, but I think it would be better if we call this once we are sure
>> that at least one tuple from the old bucket has been transferred
>> (consider if all tuples in the old bucket are de
On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 12:53 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 9:27 AM, Thomas Munro
> wrote:
>> Hmm. I notice that this calls PredicateLockPageSplit() after both
>> calls to _hash_splitbucket() (the one in _hash_finish_split() and the
>> one in _hash_expandtable()) instead of doin
On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 9:27 AM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 3:57 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Based on this sub-thread this patch's status of 'needs review' doesn't
>> quite seem accurate and 'waiting on author' and then 'returned with
>> feedback' would be more fitting?
>
> I per
On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 3:57 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Based on this sub-thread this patch's status of 'needs review' doesn't
> quite seem accurate and 'waiting on author' and then 'returned with
> feedback' would be more fitting?
I personally think this patch is really close to RFC. Shubham has
Hi,
Based on this sub-thread this patch's status of 'needs review' doesn't
quite seem accurate and 'waiting on author' and then 'returned with
feedback' would be more fitting?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 7:51 PM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> Thinking about how to tune that got me thinking about a simple middle
> way we could perhaps consider...
>
> What if we just always locked pseudo page numbers using hash_value %
> max_predicate_locks_per_relation (= effectively 31 by default)?
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 7:47 PM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> One way to avoid all that might be to use pseudo page numbers that
> don't suffer from splits. I don't know how you'd choose the
> constant, but it could be something like pseudo page number = hash
> value % 1024. In other words, you'd use
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 4:28 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 7:28 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 7:29 PM, Alexander Korotkov
>> wrote:
As Shubham seems to be running out of time, I thought of helping him
by looking into the above-suggested idea. I t
On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 7:28 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 7:29 PM, Alexander Korotkov
> wrote:
>>> As Shubham seems to be running out of time, I thought of helping him
>>> by looking into the above-suggested idea. I think one way to lock a
>>> particular hash value is we can
On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 7:29 PM, Alexander Korotkov
wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 4:24 PM, Amit Kapila
> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 8:20 PM, Alexander Korotkov
>> wrote:
>> > +1,
>> > Very nice idea! Locking hash values directly seems to be superior over
>> > locking hash index pag
On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 4:24 PM, Amit Kapila
wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 8:20 PM, Alexander Korotkov
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 4:07 AM, Thomas Munro <
> thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Shubham,
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 9:21 PM, Shubham Barai <
> shu
On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 8:20 PM, Alexander Korotkov
wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 4:07 AM, Thomas Munro
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Shubham,
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 9:21 PM, Shubham Barai
>> wrote:
>> > If these two hash keys (78988658 and 546789888) mapped to the same
>> > bucket, this will resul
On 15 January 2018 at 08:03, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Greeting Shubham, all,
>
> * Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 10:34 PM, Shubham Barai
> > wrote:
> > > I have attached the rebased version of patch here.
> >
> > The patch does not apply and there h
Greeting Shubham, all,
* Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 10:34 PM, Shubham Barai
> wrote:
> > I have attached the rebased version of patch here.
>
> The patch does not apply and there has been no reviews as well. In
> consequence, I am moving it to ne
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 10:34 PM, Shubham Barai
wrote:
> I have attached the rebased version of patch here.
The patch does not apply and there has been no reviews as well. In
consequence, I am moving it to next CF with "waiting on author" as
status. Please provide a rebased patch.
--
Michael
25 matches
Mail list logo
