Re: [HACKERS] Shaky coding for vacuuming partitioned relations

2017-09-29 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas writes: > On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Robert Haas writes: >>> If I understand correctly, problem #1 is that get_rel_oids() can emit >>> a user-visible cache lookup failure message. There is a

Re: [HACKERS] Shaky coding for vacuuming partitioned relations

2017-09-29 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> If I understand correctly, problem #1 is that get_rel_oids() can emit >> a user-visible cache lookup failure message. There is a proposed patch >> by Michael Paquier which

Re: [HACKERS] Shaky coding for vacuuming partitioned relations

2017-09-29 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas writes: > If I understand correctly, problem #1 is that get_rel_oids() can emit > a user-visible cache lookup failure message. There is a proposed patch > by Michael Paquier which appears to implement the design suggested by > Tom. I think that the normal

Re: [HACKERS] Shaky coding for vacuuming partitioned relations

2017-09-29 Thread Bossart, Nathan
On 9/29/17, 11:18 AM, "Robert Haas" wrote: > I don't think I understand problem #2. I think the concern is about > reporting the proper relation name when VACUUM cascades from a > partitioned table to its children and then some kind of concurrent DDL > happens, but I don't

Re: [HACKERS] Shaky coding for vacuuming partitioned relations

2017-09-29 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 1:31 AM, Noah Misch wrote: > This thread now has two open items, both of them pertaining to VACUUM error > messages involving partitioning. The pair is probably best treated as a > single open item. If I understand correctly, problem #1 is that

Re: [HACKERS] Shaky coding for vacuuming partitioned relations

2017-09-27 Thread Noah Misch
On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 03:13:10PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Somebody inserted this into vacuum.c's get_rel_oids(): > > tuple = SearchSysCache1(RELOID, ObjectIdGetDatum(relid)); > if (!HeapTupleIsValid(tuple)) > elog(ERROR, "cache lookup failed for relation %u", relid);

Re: [HACKERS] Shaky coding for vacuuming partitioned relations

2017-09-26 Thread Amit Langote
On 2017/09/26 11:12, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 10:54 AM, Amit Langote > wrote: >> I think that's right, although, I don't see any new RangeVar created under >> vacuum() at the moment. Maybe, you're referring to the Nathan's patch >> that

Re: [HACKERS] Shaky coding for vacuuming partitioned relations

2017-09-26 Thread Amit Langote
On 2017/09/26 11:14, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Amit Langote wrote: >> On 2017/09/26 9:51, Michael Paquier wrote: >>> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 8:48 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: Something like that looks like a good compromise for v10. I would rather see a

Re: [HACKERS] Shaky coding for vacuuming partitioned relations

2017-09-25 Thread Michael Paquier
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Amit Langote wrote: > On 2017/09/26 9:51, Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 8:48 AM, Michael Paquier >> wrote: >>> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 11:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote:

Re: [HACKERS] Shaky coding for vacuuming partitioned relations

2017-09-25 Thread Michael Paquier
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 10:54 AM, Amit Langote wrote: > I think that's right, although, I don't see any new RangeVar created under > vacuum() at the moment. Maybe, you're referring to the Nathan's patch > that perhaps does that. Yes, you can check what it does

Re: [HACKERS] Shaky coding for vacuuming partitioned relations

2017-09-25 Thread Amit Langote
On 2017/09/26 9:51, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 8:48 AM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 11:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Yeah, I'd noticed that while reviewing the vacuum-multiple-tables patch. >>> My thought

Re: [HACKERS] Shaky coding for vacuuming partitioned relations

2017-09-25 Thread Amit Langote
On 2017/09/25 18:37, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 4:42 PM, Amit Langote > wrote: >> On 2017/09/25 12:10, Michael Paquier wrote: >> Hmm, I'm not sure if we need to lock the partitions, too. Locks taken by >> find_all_inheritors() will be gone

Re: [HACKERS] Shaky coding for vacuuming partitioned relations

2017-09-25 Thread Michael Paquier
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 8:48 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 11:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Yeah, I'd noticed that while reviewing the vacuum-multiple-tables patch. >> My thought about fixing it was to pass a null RangeVar when

Re: [HACKERS] Shaky coding for vacuuming partitioned relations

2017-09-25 Thread Bossart, Nathan
On 9/25/17, 6:51 PM, "Michael Paquier" wrote: >> +* Take a lock here for the relation lookup. If ANALYZE or >> VACUUM spawn >> +* multiple transactions, the lock taken here will be gone >> once the >> +* current

Re: [HACKERS] Shaky coding for vacuuming partitioned relations

2017-09-25 Thread Michael Paquier
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 1:47 AM, Bossart, Nathan wrote: > On 9/24/17, 10:12 PM, "Michael Paquier" wrote: >> Attached is a proposal of patch. > > The patch seems reasonable to me, and I haven't encountered any issues in > my tests, even after

Re: [HACKERS] Shaky coding for vacuuming partitioned relations

2017-09-25 Thread Michael Paquier
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 11:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Yeah, I'd noticed that while reviewing the vacuum-multiple-tables patch. > My thought about fixing it was to pass a null RangeVar when handling a > table we'd identified through inheritance or pg_class-scanning, to > indicate

Re: [HACKERS] Shaky coding for vacuuming partitioned relations

2017-09-25 Thread Bossart, Nathan
On 9/24/17, 10:12 PM, "Michael Paquier" wrote: > Attached is a proposal of patch. The patch seems reasonable to me, and I haven't encountered any issues in my tests, even after applying the vacuum-multiple-relations patch on top of it. +* Take a lock

Re: [HACKERS] Shaky coding for vacuuming partitioned relations

2017-09-25 Thread Tom Lane
Amit Langote writes: > On 2017/09/25 12:10, Michael Paquier wrote: >> As long as I don't forget... Another thing currently on HEAD and >> REL_10_STABLE is that OIDs of partitioned tables are used, but the >> RangeVar of the parent is used for error reports. This

Re: [HACKERS] Shaky coding for vacuuming partitioned relations

2017-09-25 Thread Masahiko Sawada
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 8:22 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 7:57 PM, Masahiko Sawada > wrote: >> FWIW, the same thing can happen when specifying an invalid replication >> origin name to pg_replication_origin_advance() and

Re: [HACKERS] Shaky coding for vacuuming partitioned relations

2017-09-25 Thread Michael Paquier
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 7:57 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > FWIW, the same thing can happen when specifying an invalid replication > origin name to pg_replication_origin_advance() and > pg_replication_origin_progress(). These probably should fixed as well. I have spawned a

Re: [HACKERS] Shaky coding for vacuuming partitioned relations

2017-09-25 Thread Masahiko Sawada
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 4:13 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Somebody inserted this into vacuum.c's get_rel_oids(): >> >> tuple = SearchSysCache1(RELOID, ObjectIdGetDatum(relid)); >>

Re: [HACKERS] Shaky coding for vacuuming partitioned relations

2017-09-25 Thread Michael Paquier
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 4:42 PM, Amit Langote wrote: > On 2017/09/25 12:10, Michael Paquier wrote: > Hmm, I'm not sure if we need to lock the partitions, too. Locks taken by > find_all_inheritors() will be gone once the already-running transaction is > ended by the

Re: [HACKERS] Shaky coding for vacuuming partitioned relations

2017-09-25 Thread Amit Langote
On 2017/09/25 12:10, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 4:13 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Somebody inserted this into vacuum.c's get_rel_oids(): >> >> tuple = SearchSysCache1(RELOID, ObjectIdGetDatum(relid)); >> if (!HeapTupleIsValid(tuple)) >>

Re: [HACKERS] Shaky coding for vacuuming partitioned relations

2017-09-24 Thread Michael Paquier
On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 4:13 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Somebody inserted this into vacuum.c's get_rel_oids(): > > tuple = SearchSysCache1(RELOID, ObjectIdGetDatum(relid)); > if (!HeapTupleIsValid(tuple)) > elog(ERROR, "cache lookup failed for relation

[HACKERS] Shaky coding for vacuuming partitioned relations

2017-09-22 Thread Tom Lane
Somebody inserted this into vacuum.c's get_rel_oids(): tuple = SearchSysCache1(RELOID, ObjectIdGetDatum(relid)); if (!HeapTupleIsValid(tuple)) elog(ERROR, "cache lookup failed for relation %u", relid); apparently without having read the very verbose comment two lines