Re: [HACKERS] Write Ahead Logging for Hash Indexes

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Mark Kirkwood wrote: > On 24/08/16 17:01, Mark Kirkwood wrote: >> >> >> ...actually I was wrong there, only 2 of them were the same. So I've >> attached a new log of bt's of them all. >> >> >> > > And I can reproduce with only 1

Re: [HACKERS] Write Ahead Logging for Hash Indexes

On 24/08/16 17:01, Mark Kirkwood wrote: ...actually I was wrong there, only 2 of them were the same. So I've attached a new log of bt's of them all. And I can reproduce with only 1 session, figured that might be a helpful piece of the puzzle (trace attached). $ pgbench -c 1 -T600

Re: [HACKERS] Write Ahead Logging for Hash Indexes

On 24/08/16 16:52, Mark Kirkwood wrote: On 24/08/16 16:33, Amit Kapila wrote: On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 9:53 AM, Mark Kirkwood wrote: On 24/08/16 15:36, Amit Kapila wrote: On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Mark Kirkwood wrote: Can

Re: [HACKERS] Write Ahead Logging for Hash Indexes

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 2:37 AM, Jeff Janes wrote: > Hi Amit, > > Thanks for working on this. > > When building with --enable-cassert, I get compiler warning: > > hash.c: In function 'hashbucketcleanup': > hash.c:722: warning: 'new_bucket' may be used uninitialized in this

Re: [HACKERS] Write Ahead Logging for Hash Indexes

On 24/08/16 16:33, Amit Kapila wrote: On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 9:53 AM, Mark Kirkwood wrote: On 24/08/16 15:36, Amit Kapila wrote: On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Mark Kirkwood wrote: Can you get the call stacks? For every stuck

Re: [HACKERS] Write Ahead Logging for Hash Indexes

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 9:53 AM, Mark Kirkwood wrote: > On 24/08/16 15:36, Amit Kapila wrote: >> >> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Mark Kirkwood >> wrote: >>> >> >> Can you get the call stacks? >> > > For every stuck backend? (just

Re: [HACKERS] Write Ahead Logging for Hash Indexes

On 24/08/16 15:36, Amit Kapila wrote: On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Mark Kirkwood wrote: On 24/08/16 12:09, Mark Kirkwood wrote: On 23/08/16 15:24, Amit Kapila wrote: Thoughts? Note - To use this patch, first apply latest version of concurrent hash index

Re: [HACKERS] Write Ahead Logging for Hash Indexes

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Mark Kirkwood wrote: > On 24/08/16 12:09, Mark Kirkwood wrote: >> >> On 23/08/16 15:24, Amit Kapila wrote: >>> >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> Note - To use this patch, first apply latest version of concurrent >>> hash index patch [2]. >>>

Re: [HACKERS] Write Ahead Logging for Hash Indexes

On 24/08/16 12:09, Mark Kirkwood wrote: On 23/08/16 15:24, Amit Kapila wrote: Thoughts? Note - To use this patch, first apply latest version of concurrent hash index patch [2]. [1] - https://commitfest.postgresql.org/10/647/ [2] -

Re: [HACKERS] Write Ahead Logging for Hash Indexes

On 23/08/16 15:24, Amit Kapila wrote: Thoughts? Note - To use this patch, first apply latest version of concurrent hash index patch [2]. [1] - https://commitfest.postgresql.org/10/647/ [2] -

Re: [HACKERS] Write Ahead Logging for Hash Indexes

Hi Amit, Thanks for working on this. When building with --enable-cassert, I get compiler warning: hash.c: In function 'hashbucketcleanup': hash.c:722: warning: 'new_bucket' may be used uninitialized in this function After an intentionally created crash, I get an Assert triggering: TRAP:

Re: [HACKERS] Write Ahead Logging for Hash Indexes

Hi All, Following are the steps that i have followed to verify the WAL Logging of hash index, 1. I used Mithun's patch to improve coverage of hash index code [1] to verify the WAL Logging of hash index. Firstly i have confirmed if all the XLOG records associated with hash index are being covered

Re: [HACKERS] Write Ahead Logging for Hash Indexes

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > $SUBJECT will make hash indexes reliable and usable on standby. > AFAIU, currently hash indexes are not recommended to be used in > production mainly because they are not crash-safe and with this patch, > I hope we can

<    1   2