On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 10:17 AM Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 10:15 AM Kevin Grittner wrote:
> > It applies and builds clean, it passed make world with cassert and TAP
> > tests, and I can't see any remaining flaws. This is true both of just
> > the 0001 v16 patch and that with 0
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 10:15 AM Kevin Grittner wrote:
> It applies and builds clean, it passed make world with cassert and TAP
> tests, and I can't see any remaining flaws. This is true both of just
> the 0001 v16 patch and that with 0002 v16 applied on top of it.
Thanks. I'd like to commit th
On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 9:40 PM Thomas Munro
wrote:
> Rebased.
It applies and builds clean, it passed make world with cassert and TAP
tests, and I can't see any remaining flaws. This is true both of just
the 0001 v16 patch and that with 0002 v16 applied on top of it.
It would be great if someone
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 4:53 PM Thomas Munro
wrote:
> Thanks for the review! And sorry for my delayed response. Here is a
> rebased patch, with changes as requested.
Rebased.
--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com
0001-Enable-parallel-query-with-SERIALIZABLE-isolatio-v16.patch
Descripti
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 9:50 AM Kevin Grittner wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 8:58 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > I looked at this patches. The latest patch can build without any
> > errors and warnings and pass all regression tests. I don't see
> > critical bugs but there are random comments.
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 04:50:40PM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> I will spend a few more days in testing and review, but figured I
> should pass along "first impressions" now.
Kevin, it seems that this patch is pending on your input. I have moved
this patch to next CF for now.
--
Michael
signa
After reviewing the thread and the current two patches, I agree with
Masahiko Sawada plus preferring one adjustment to the coding: I would
prefer to break out the majority of the ReleasePredicateLocks function
to a static ReleasePredicateLocksMain (or similar) function and
eliminating the goto.
Th
On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 3:12 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 7:28 PM, Thomas Munro
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 7:55 PM, Masahiko Sawada
>> wrote:
>>> I'd like to test and review this patches but they seem to conflict
>>> with current HEAD. Could you please rebase the
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 7:28 PM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 7:55 PM, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
>> I'd like to test and review this patches but they seem to conflict
>> with current HEAD. Could you please rebase them?
>
> Hi Sawada-san,
>
> Thanks! Rebased and attached. The on
On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 7:55 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> I'd like to test and review this patches but they seem to conflict
> with current HEAD. Could you please rebase them?
Hi Sawada-san,
Thanks! Rebased and attached. The only changes are: the LWLock
tranche is now shown as "serializable_xa
On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 2:56 PM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:28 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> +SerializableXactHandle
>> +ShareSerializableXact(void)
>> +{
>> +Assert(!IsParallelWorker());
>> +
>> +return MySerializableXact;
>> +}
>>
>> Uh, how's that OK? There's no rule
On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:28 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> +SerializableXactHandle
> +ShareSerializableXact(void)
> +{
> +Assert(!IsParallelWorker());
> +
> +return MySerializableXact;
> +}
>
> Uh, how's that OK? There's no rule that you can't create a
> ParallelContext in a worker. Parallel
On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 11:35 PM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 6:37 PM, Thomas Munro
> wrote:
>> I've now broken it into two patches.
>
> Rebased.
+SerializableXactHandle
+ShareSerializableXact(void)
+{
+Assert(!IsParallelWorker());
+
+return MySerializableXact;
+}
Uh,
On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 6:37 PM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> I've now broken it into two patches.
Rebased.
--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com
0001-Enable-parallel-query-with-SERIALIZABLE-isolatio-v13.patch
Description: Binary data
0002-Enable-the-read-only-SERIALIZABLE-optimization-f-v13
On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 12:04 AM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> I'm testing another version that is a lot simpler: like v10, it relies
> on the knowledge that the leader's transaction will always end after
> the workers have finished, but it handles the RO_SAFE optimisation by
> keeping the SERIALIZABLEXA
On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 6:05 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 7:54 AM, Thomas Munro
> wrote:>
>> The best solution I have come up with so far is to add a reference
>> count to SERIALIZABLEXACT. I toyed with putting the refcount into the
>> DSM instead, but then I ran into problem
On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 7:56 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 8:48 AM, Thomas Munro
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 3:29 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>> By the way, in which case leader can exit early? As of now, we do
>>> wait for workers to end both before the query is finished
On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 8:48 AM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 3:29 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 10:35 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 7:54 AM, Thomas Munro
PS I noticed that for BecomeLockGroupMember() we say "If we can't
join t
On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 3:29 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 10:35 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 7:54 AM, Thomas Munro
>>> PS I noticed that for BecomeLockGroupMember() we say "If we can't
>>> join the lock group, the leader has gone away, so just exit quietl
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 10:35 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 7:54 AM, Thomas Munro
>> PS I noticed that for BecomeLockGroupMember() we say "If we can't
>> join the lock group, the leader has gone away, so just exit quietly"
>> but for various other similar things we spew errors
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 7:54 AM, Thomas Munro
wrote:>
> The best solution I have come up with so far is to add a reference
> count to SERIALIZABLEXACT. I toyed with putting the refcount into the
> DSM instead, but then I ran into problems making that work when you
> have a query with multiple Gat
On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 1:54 AM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> The attached is a draft patch only, needing some testing and polish.
> Brickbats, better ideas?
Note, that version is broken for multiple Gather nodes, but that's
fixable. Comments on the general idea welcome.
--
Thomas Munro
http://www.en
On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 4:24 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> I took a look at this today and thought it might be OK to commit,
Thank you for looking at this!
> modulo a few minor issues: (1) you didn't document the new tranche and
Fixed.
> (2) I prefer to avoid if (blah) { Assert(thing) } in favor of
On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 7:39 PM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> This started crashing some time yesterday with an assertion failure in
> the isolation tests after commit 2badb5af landed. Reordering of code
> in parallel.c confused patch's fuzz heuristics leading
> SetSerializableXact() to be called too so
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Haribabu Kommi
> wrote:
>> Thanks for explaining the problem in generating an isolation test to
>> test the serialize parallel query.
>>
>> Committer can decide whether existing test is fine to part of the tes
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Haribabu Kommi
wrote:
> Thanks for explaining the problem in generating an isolation test to
> test the serialize parallel query.
>
> Committer can decide whether existing test is fine to part of the test suite
> or remove it, other than that everything is fine. so
On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 11:33 AM, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 2:44 PM, Thomas Munro
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Michael Paquier
> > wrote:
> >> Could this question be answered? The patch still applies so I am
> >> moving it to next CF.
>
> Rebased, 'cause it b
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 2:44 PM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> Could this question be answered? The patch still applies so I am
>> moving it to next CF.
Rebased, 'cause it broke.
--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com
ssi-parallel-v9.
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 1:06 PM, Haribabu Kommi
> wrote:
>> The latest patch is good. It lacks a test that verifies the serialize
>> support with actual parallel workers, so in case if it broken, it is
>> difficult to know.
>
> Could this
On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 1:06 PM, Haribabu Kommi
wrote:
> The latest patch is good. It lacks a test that verifies the serialize
> support with actual parallel workers, so in case if it broken, it is
> difficult to know.
Could this question be answered? The patch still applies so I am
moving it to
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 4:41 PM, Haribabu Kommi
wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 6:57 PM, Thomas Munro <
> thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 8:37 PM, Haribabu Kommi
>> wrote:
>> > After I tune the GUC to go with sequence scan, still I am not getting
>> the
>>
31 matches
Mail list logo
