On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 11:49 AM, Brad DeJong wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 6:43 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I think I was suggesting: One or more rows required by this query may
>> already have been removed from "%s".
>
> I keep reading that as "you have data corruption
On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 6:43 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> I think I was suggesting: One or more rows required by this query may
> already have been removed from "%s".
I keep reading that as "you have data corruption because something removed rows
that your query needs" rather than "this query took
On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 6:12 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 9:23 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>> Can this happen for relation types other than tables, say materialized
>> views? (Your suggested wording omits relation type so
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 8:22 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> > On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Robert Haas
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 9:23 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 8:22 PM, Robert Haas
> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Kevin Grittner
> wrote:
>
> > > > That
Magnus wrote:
> Just to be clear, you're suggesting 'One or more rows may have already been
> removed from "%s"?
Perhaps just 'This query attempted to access a page in "%s" that was modified
after the snapshot was acquired.'
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 8:22 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> > > That particular language would be misleading. All we know about
> > > the page is that it was modified
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 8:22 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Robert Haas
> wrote:
> >
> >> I think it would be better not to include either the
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
>> I think it would be better not to include either the snapshot or the
>> block number, and just find some way to reword the error message so
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> I think it would be better not to include either the snapshot or the
> block number, and just find some way to reword the error message so
> that it mentions which relation was involved without implying that all
>
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 7:43 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Magnus Hagander
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 7:27 PM, Robert Haas
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Magnus
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 12:45 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander writes:
>> Is there value in showing which snapshot as well? Something like:
>> DETAIL: snapshot is too old to access relation
>
> Snapshots don't have names, and I can't think of a
Magnus Hagander writes:
> Is there value in showing which snapshot as well? Something like:
> DETAIL: snapshot is too old to access relation
Snapshots don't have names, and I can't think of a useful way of
identifying them to users.
regards, tom
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 7:27 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Magnus Hagander
>> wrote:
>> > Is there value in showing which snapshot as well?
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 12:20 PM Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Is there value in showing the snapshot as well?
I don't think so. Knowing the relname let's you look at your report/job and
figure out if the access to that relation can be moved. Having the exact
snapshot version isn't going to change
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 7:27 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Magnus Hagander
> wrote:
> > Is there value in showing which snapshot as well? Something like:
> > DETAIL: snapshot is too old to access relation
>
> IIUC, the
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Is there value in showing which snapshot as well? Something like:
> DETAIL: snapshot is too old to access relation
IIUC, the granularity is per-block, not per-relation, so that might be
misleading.
--
Robert Haas
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Kevin Grittner writes:
> > On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 3:38 AM, Magnus Hagander
> wrote:
> >> Is there a reason why we don't log which relation triggered the
> >> snapshot too old error when it happens?
>
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 5:29 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Kevin Grittner writes:
> > On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 3:38 AM, Magnus Hagander
> wrote:
> >> Is there a reason why we don't log which relation triggered the
> snapshot too
> >> old error
Kevin Grittner writes:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 3:38 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> Is there a reason why we don't log which relation triggered the snapshot too
>> old error when it happens?
> I would probably not want to mess with the text of the error
>
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 3:38 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Is there a reason why we don't log which relation triggered the snapshot too
> old error when it happens?
>
> Since we do have Relation available in TestForOldSnapshot_impl(), shouldn't
> we be able to include it?
>
>
Is there a reason why we don't log which relation triggered the snapshot
too old error when it happens?
Since we do have Relation available in TestForOldSnapshot_impl(), shouldn't
we be able to include it?
Having that in the log message would be very helpful, but is there a reason
why it
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 03:50:36PM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> >> Also, it seems we have similar behavior already in applying WAL on the
> >> standby --- we delay WAL replay when there is a long-running
> >> transaction. Once the time expires, we apply the WAL. Do we cancel the
> >>
On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 11:54 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 10:20:19AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 12:48:08PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>> On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 8:34 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I kind of
On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 10:20:19AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 12:48:08PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 8:34 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > >
> > > I kind of agreed with Tom about just aborting transactions that held
> > >
On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 5:20 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 12:48:08PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 8:34 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > >
> > > I kind of agreed with Tom about just aborting transactions that held
> >
On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 12:48:08PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 8:34 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > I kind of agreed with Tom about just aborting transactions that held
> > snapshots for too long, and liked the idea this could be set per
> > session, but
On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 8:34 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 07:38:04AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > 2. Without this feature, you can kill sessions or transactions to
> > control bloat, but this feature is properly thought of as a way to
> > avoid bloat
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 07:38:04AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> 2. Without this feature, you can kill sessions or transactions to
> control bloat, but this feature is properly thought of as a way to
> avoid bloat *without* killing sessions or transactions. You can let
> the session live, without
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> In case anyone notices some code left at the bottom of bufmgr.h
> related to inline functions, that was left on purpose, because I am
> pretty sure that the fix for the performance regression observed
> when the
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 12:49 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Well, it seems I'm outvoted.
The no-op change to attempt to force an explicit choice of whether
to test for snapshot age after calling BufferGetPage() has been
reverted. This eliminates about 500 back-patching
Kevin Grittner wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 11:02 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> > Robert Haas wrote:
> >
> >> That wouldn't have fixed my problem, which involved rebasing a patch.
> >
> > True. I note that it's possible to munge a patch mechanically to sort
> > out
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 11:02 AM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Andres Freund wrote:
>> On 2016-04-19 12:03:22 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
Since this change to BufferGetPage() has caused severe back-patch
pain for at least two committers so far, I will revert that
Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-04-19 12:03:22 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > Since this change to BufferGetPage() has caused severe back-patch
> > > pain for at least two committers so far, I will revert that (very
> > > recent) change to this patch later today unless I hear an
> > >
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 6:38 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> > The right thing to do about that is just change it back to the
>> > way Kevin had it originally.
>>
>>
On 2016-04-19 12:03:22 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Kevin Grittner wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 6:38 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> >
> > > The right thing to do about that is just change it back to the
> > > way Kevin had it originally.
> >
> > Since this change to
Kevin Grittner wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 6:38 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> > The right thing to do about that is just change it back to the
> > way Kevin had it originally.
>
> Since this change to BufferGetPage() has caused severe back-patch
> pain for at least two
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 6:38 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> The right thing to do about that is just change it back to the
> way Kevin had it originally.
Since this change to BufferGetPage() has caused severe back-patch
pain for at least two committers so far, I will revert
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 1:23 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 3:14 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Or in short: this is a whole lot further than I'm prepared to go to
>> satisfy one customer with a badly-designed application. And from
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 3:14 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Or in short: this is a whole lot further than I'm prepared to go to
> satisfy one customer with a badly-designed application. And from what
> I can tell from the Feb 2015 discussion, that's what this has been
> written for.
Kevin Grittner writes:
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Surely there was another way to get a similar end result without
>> mucking with things at the level of BufferGetPage.
> To get the feature that some customers have been
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Surely there was another way to get a similar end result without
> mucking with things at the level of BufferGetPage.
To get the feature that some customers have been demanding, a check
has to be made somewhere near where
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > I disagree. A developer that sees an unadorned BufferGetPage() call
> > doesn't stop to think twice about whether they need to add a snapshot
> > test. Many reviewers will miss the necessary addition also. A
> > developer
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 8:41 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Kevin Grittner writes:
>> On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 10:38 PM, Alvaro Herrera
>> wrote:
>>> I understand the backpatching pain argument, but my opinion was the
>>> contrary of yours
On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 6:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> After struggling with back-patching a GIN bug fix, I wish to offer up the
> considered opinion that this was an impressively bad idea. It's inserted
> 450 or so pain points for back-patching, which we will have to deal with
>
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> I disagree. A developer that sees an unadorned BufferGetPage() call
> doesn't stop to think twice about whether they need to add a snapshot
> test. Many reviewers will miss the necessary addition also. A
> developer that sees
Kevin Grittner writes:
> On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 10:38 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>> I understand the backpatching pain argument, but my opinion was the
>> contrary of yours even so.
> The other possibility would be to backpatch the no-op patch
On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 10:38 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> After struggling with back-patching a GIN bug fix, I wish to offer up the
>> considered opinion that this was an impressively bad idea. It's inserted
>> 450 or so pain points for
Tom Lane wrote:
> After struggling with back-patching a GIN bug fix, I wish to offer up the
> considered opinion that this was an impressively bad idea. It's inserted
> 450 or so pain points for back-patching, which we will have to deal with
> for the next five years. Moreover, I do not believe
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 5:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Kevin Grittner writes:
>>> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Alvaro Herrera>
>>> wrote:
Kevin
On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 5:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Kevin Grittner writes:
>> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Alvaro Herrera>
>> wrote:
>>> Kevin Grittner wrote:
On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Alvaro Herrera
Kevin Grittner writes:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>> Kevin Grittner wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Alvaro Herrera
>>> wrote:
>>> I said that we should change BufferGetPage into
On 4/8/16 4:30 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> Sadly, I forgot to include the reviewer information when writing the
>> commit messages. :-(
>
> Oh well. I'm just glad we got the patch over the line. I think that
> there
On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Sadly, I forgot to include the reviewer information when writing the
> commit messages. :-(
Oh well. I'm just glad we got the patch over the line. I think that
there are some types of users that will very significantly
On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 6:12 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> I think that there is a good argument in favor of this patch that you
> may have failed to make yourself, which is: it limits bloat in a way
> that's analogous to how RecentGlobalDataXmin can do so for logical
> decoding
On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 3:56 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> Unfortunately, this does stop recycling from
>> happening early for B-Tree pages, even though that's probably safe in
>> principle. This is probably not so bad -- it just needs to be
>> considered when reviewing this
On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 9:15 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> The patch does this:
>
>> --- a/src/backend/access/heap/pruneheap.c
>> +++ b/src/backend/access/heap/pruneheap.c
>> @@ -92,12 +92,21 @@ heap_page_prune_opt(Relation relation, Buffer buffer)
>> * need to use the
On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 1:27 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>>> I set the value to 1min.
>>>
>>> I set up a test like this:
>>>
On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 2:09 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> Also, HOT-cleanup should stop the bloat increase once the snapshot
>> crosses the old_snapshot_threshold without even needing to wait until
>> the
On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 2:09 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> Also, HOT-cleanup should stop the bloat increase once the snapshot
> crosses the old_snapshot_threshold without even needing to wait until
> the next autovac runs.
>
> Does the code intentionally only work for manual
On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 12:46 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>
>> [Does the patch allow dangling page pointers?]
>
>> Again, I don't want to prejudice anyone against your patch, which I
>> haven't read.
>
>
On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 1:27 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure if this is operating as expected.
>>
>> I set the value to 1min.
>>
>> I set up a test like this:
>>
>> pgbench -i
>>
>> pgbench
On Sat, Apr 2, 2016 at 7:12 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 11:45 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>> Kevin Grittner wrote:
>>
>>> Attached is what I think you're talking about for the first patch.
>>> AFAICS this should
On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 11:45 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Kevin Grittner wrote:
>
>> Attached is what I think you're talking about for the first patch.
>> AFAICS this should generate identical executable code to unpatched.
>> Then the patch to actually implement the
Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Attached is what I think you're talking about for the first patch.
> AFAICS this should generate identical executable code to unpatched.
> Then the patch to actually implement the feature would, instead
> of adding 30-some lines with TestForOldSnapshot() would implement
>
On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 9:19 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Michael Paquier wrote:
>
>> Just a note: I began looking at the tests, but finished looking at the
>> patch entirely at the end by curiosity. Regarding the integration of
>> this patch for 9.6, I think that bumping
Michael Paquier wrote:
> Just a note: I began looking at the tests, but finished looking at the
> patch entirely at the end by curiosity. Regarding the integration of
> this patch for 9.6, I think that bumping that to 9.7 would be wiser
> because the patch needs to be re-written largely, and
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 5:09 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>> I understand the invasiveness argument, but to me the danger of
>> introducing new bugs trumps that. The problem is not the current
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 2:24 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> I have been looking at 4a, the test module, and things are looking
> good IMO. Something that I think would be adapted would be to define
> the options for isolation tests in a variable, like ISOLATION_OPTS to
>
Kevin Grittner wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> > I said that we should change BufferGetPage into having the snapshot
> > check built-in, except in the cases where a flag is passed; and the flag
> > would be passed in all cases except
On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> I understand the invasiveness argument, but to me the danger of
> introducing new bugs trumps that. The problem is not the current code,
> but future patches: it is just too easy to make the mistake of not
>
On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> A connection should not get the
> error just because it is using a snapshot that tries to look at
> data that might be wrong, and the connection holding the long-lived
> snapshot doesn't do that until it awakes from the
On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> [Does the patch allow dangling page pointers?]
> Again, I don't want to prejudice anyone against your patch, which I
> haven't read.
I don't believe that the way the patch does its business opens any
new vulnerabilities
On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 1:27 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> I'm not sure if this is operating as expected.
>
> I set the value to 1min.
>
> I set up a test like this:
>
> pgbench -i
>
> pgbench -c4 -j4 -T 3600 &
>
> ### watch the size of branches table
> while (true) ; do psql -c
On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Well, amcheck is a tool that in essence makes sure that B-Trees look
> structurally sound, and respect invariants like having every item on
> each page in logical order. That could catch a bug of the kind I just
>
Kevin Grittner wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 11:37 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Alvaro Herrera writes:
> >> I think a safer proposition would be to replace all current
> >> BufferGetPage() calls (there are about 500) by adding the necessary
> >>
On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> When the initial "proof of concept" patch was tested by the
> customer, it was not effective due to issues related to what you
> raise. Autovacuum workers were blocking due to the page pins for
> scans using these old
On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 6:25 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> I haven't read the patch, but I wonder: What are the implications here
> for B-Tree page recycling by VACUUM?
> Offhand, I imagine that there'd be some special considerations. Why is
> it okay that an index scan could
On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 11:37 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
>> I think a safer proposition would be to replace all current
>> BufferGetPage() calls (there are about 500) by adding the necessary
>> arguments: buffer, snapshot, rel, and
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> I think a safer proposition would be to replace all current
> BufferGetPage() calls (there are about 500) by adding the necessary
> arguments: buffer, snapshot, rel, and an integer "flags". All this
> without adding the feature. Then a
Michael Paquier wrote:
> page = BufferGetPage(buf);
> + TestForOldSnapshot(scan->xs_snapshot, rel, page);
> This is a sequence repeated many times in this patch, a new routine,
> say BufferGetPageExtended with a uint8 flag, one flag being used to
> test old snapshots would be more adapted.
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 8:58 AM, David Steele wrote:
> We're getting to the end of the CF now. Do you know when you'll have an
> updated patch ready?
I am working on it right now. Hopefully I can get it all sorted today.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB:
Hi Kevin,
On 3/21/16 4:05 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Thanks to all for the feedback; I will try to respond later this
week. First I'm trying to get my reviews for other patches posted.
We're getting to the end of the CF now. Do you know when you'll have an
updated patch ready?
Thanks,
--
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 5:05 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Thanks to all for the feedback; I will try to respond later this
> week. First I'm trying to get my reviews for other patches posted.
I have been looking at 4a, the test module, and things are looking
good IMO.
Thanks to all for the feedback; I will try to respond later this
week. First I'm trying to get my reviews for other patches posted.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To
On 17 March 2016 at 21:15, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> New patch just to merge in recent commits -- it was starting to
> show some bit-rot. Tests folded in with main patch.
In session 1, I've run:
# begin transaction isolation level repeatable read ;
BEGIN
*# declare stuff
On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 4:25 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> I worry that something weird could happen there. For example, perhaps
> the page LSN on what is actually a newly recycled page could be set
> such that the backend following a stale right spuriously raises a
> "snapshot
On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> New patch just to merge in recent commits -- it was starting to
> show some bit-rot. Tests folded in with main patch.
I haven't read the patch, but I wonder: What are the implications here
for B-Tree page recycling by
New patch just to merge in recent commits -- it was starting to
show some bit-rot. Tests folded in with main patch.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
snapshot-too-old-v5.patch
Description: invalid/octet-stream
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> New patch just to merge in recent commits -- it was starting to
> show some bit-rot. Tests folded in with main patch.
I'm not sure if this is operating as expected.
I set the value to 1min.
I set up a test like this:
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> Thanks for the tips. Attached is a minimal set of isolation tests.
>> I can expand on it if needed, but wanted:
>>
>> (1) to confirm that this
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Thanks for the tips. Attached is a minimal set of isolation tests.
> I can expand on it if needed, but wanted:
>
> (1) to confirm that this is the right way to do this, and
>
> (2) how long people were willing to tolerate
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 12:58 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> On 2016-02-29 18:30:27 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>>> Basically, a connection needs to remain open and interleave
>>> commands with
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-02-29 18:30:27 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> Basically, a connection needs to remain open and interleave
>> commands with other connections, which the isolation tester does
>> just fine; but it needs to do that
On 2016-02-29 18:30:27 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Basically, a connection needs to remain open and interleave
> commands with other connections, which the isolation tester does
> just fine; but it needs to do that using a custom postgresql.conf
> file, which TAP does just fine. I haven't been
On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 5:22 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> People have said that issuing SQL commands directly from a TAP test
>> via DBD::Pg is not acceptable for a core feature, and (despite
>> assertions to the contrary) I see no way to test this feature with
>>
Kevin Grittner wrote:
> > There has been a review but no replies for more than 1 month. Returned
> > with feedback?
>
> I do intend to post another version of the patch to tweak the
> calculations again, after I can get a patch in to expand the
> testing capabilities to allow an acceptable way
Kevin Grittner wrote:
> People have said that issuing SQL commands directly from a TAP test
> via DBD::Pg is not acceptable for a core feature, and (despite
> assertions to the contrary) I see no way to test this feature with
> existing testing mechanisms. The bigger set of work here, if we
>
On 2015-12-02 14:48:24 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 12:39 AM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 8:07 AM, Steve Singer wrote:
>
> >> In snapmgr.c
> >>
> >>
> >> + * XXX: If we can trust a read of an int64
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 12:39 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 8:07 AM, Steve Singer wrote:
>> In snapmgr.c
>>
>>
>> + * XXX: If we can trust a read of an int64 value to be atomic, we can skip
>> the
>> + * spinlock here.
>> + */
1 - 100 of 257 matches
Mail list logo