Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Worst case, we could say that parallel restore isn't supported on
mingw. I'm not entirely sure why we bother with that platform at all...
I think you're confusing it with cygwin ...
Yeah. Much as I hate working around the quirks of mingw, I
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
I have found the source of the problem I saw. dumputils.c:fmtId()
uses a static PQExpBuffer which it initialises the first time it's
called. This gets clobbered by simultaneous calls by Windows threads.
I could just
Magnus Hagander wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
I have found the source of the problem I saw. dumputils.c:fmtId()
uses a static PQExpBuffer which it initialises the first time it's
called. This gets clobbered by simultaneous calls
Tom Lane wrote:
I've seen a recent error that suggests we are clobbering memory
somewhere in the parallel code, as well as Olivier Prennant's reported
error that suggests the same thing, although I'm blessed if I can see
where it might be. Maybe some more eyeballs on the code would help.
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
I have found the source of the problem I saw. dumputils.c:fmtId() uses a
static PQExpBuffer which it initialises the first time it's called. This
gets clobbered by simultaneous calls by Windows threads.
Ugh. But that doesn't explain the original
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
I have found the source of the problem I saw. dumputils.c:fmtId() uses a
static PQExpBuffer which it initialises the first time it's called. This
gets clobbered by simultaneous calls by Windows threads.
I could just make it auto and set it up on each call, but that
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
I have found the source of the problem I saw. dumputils.c:fmtId() uses a
static PQExpBuffer which it initialises the first time it's called. This
gets clobbered by simultaneous calls by Windows threads.
I could just make it auto and set it
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Could you use a different static PQExpBuffer on each thread?
pthread_getspecific sort of thing, only to be used on Windows.
For MSVC we could declare it with _declspec(thread) and it would be
allocated in thread-local storage,
Tom Lane wrote:
Worst case, we could say that parallel restore isn't supported on
mingw. I'm not entirely sure why we bother with that platform at all...
I think you're confusing it with cygwin ...
--
Alvaro Herrerahttp://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL
o...@pyrenet.fr writes:
the only thing I could come with is a calloc(1,12) that seems to alloc
mem for filename, in that case sdewitte.dmp; so the alloc is not counting
the null char at the end.
Where do you see that? The memtool dump you sent doesn't show it AFAICS.
Tom Lane wrote:
o...@pyrenet.fr writes:
the only thing I could come with is a calloc(1,12) that seems to alloc
mem for filename, in that case sdewitte.dmp; so the alloc is not counting
the null char at the end.
Where do you see that? The memtool dump you sent doesn't show it
Here's a little optimization for the parallel restore code, that
inhibits reopening the archive file unless the worker will actually need
to read from the file (i.e. a data member). It seems to work OK on both
Linux and Windows, and I propose to apply it in a day or two.
I've seen a recent
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
Here's a little optimization for the parallel restore code, that
inhibits reopening the archive file unless the worker will actually need
to read from the file (i.e. a data member). It seems to work OK on both
Linux and Windows, and I propose to
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Can you put together even a weakly reproducible test case? Something
that only fails every tenth or hundredth time would still help.
It seems that Olivier can reproduce the problem at will on Unixware. I
don't know if it's easy
] small parallel restore optimization
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Can you put together even a weakly reproducible test case? Something
that only fails every tenth or hundredth time would still help.
not sure, none of my tests did fail at the same place
15 matches
Mail list logo
