Re: [HACKERS] SSI patch version 12

2011-01-18 Thread Kevin Grittner
Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: There's a few remaining TODO comments in the code, which obviously need to be resolved one way or another Not all of these are must haves for 9.1. Here's how they break down: The two in predicate_internals.h mark places which

Re: [HACKERS] SSI patch version 12

2011-01-18 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote: That's all of them. Our existing code has plenty of TODOs in it already, so I see no problem with continuing to comment places where future enhancements are possible, as long as they don't reflect deficiencies

Re: [HACKERS] SSI patch version 12

2011-01-18 Thread Kevin Grittner
Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote: If my back-of-the-envelope math is right, a carefully constructed pessimal load could need up to (max_connections / 2)^2 -- so 100 connections could conceivably require 2500 structures, although such a scenario would be hard to create.

Re: [HACKERS] SSI patch version 12

2011-01-17 Thread David Fetter
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 09:58:35AM +0200, Anssi Kääriäinen wrote: One thing I have been thinking about is how does predicate locking indexes work when using functional indexes and functions marked as immutable but which really aren't. I don't know how predicate locking indexes works, so it

Re: [HACKERS] SSI patch version 12

2011-01-17 Thread Kevin Grittner
Anssi Kääriäinen wrote: I tried to break the version 11 of the patch (some of the work was against earlier versions). In total I have used a full work day just trying to break things, but haven't been able to find anything after version 8. I can verify that the partial index issue is fixed,

Re: [HACKERS] SSI patch version 12

2011-01-17 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 15.01.2011 01:54, Kevin Grittner wrote: /* * for r/o transactions: list of concurrent r/w transactions that we could * potentially have conflicts with, and vice versa for r/w transactions */ TransactionId topXid; /* top level xid for the

Re: [HACKERS] SSI patch version 12

2011-01-17 Thread Dan Ports
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 09:58:44PM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: What does that comment about list of concurrent r/w transactions refer to? I don't see any list there. Does it refer to possibleUnsafeConflicts, which is above that comment? Yes, that comment was supposed to be attached to

Re: [HACKERS] SSI patch version 12

2011-01-17 Thread Kevin Grittner
Dan Ports wrote: Yes, that comment was supposed to be attached to possibleUnsafeConflicts. Actually, I think that other hash no longer exists The comment above SERIALIZABLEXACT also needs to be updated since it refers to said hash table. And if I'm not mistaken (Kevin?), we can

Re: [HACKERS] SSI patch version 12

2011-01-17 Thread Dan Ports
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 06:52:09PM -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote: I think we still need the vxid. It shows in the pg_locks view, and we might possibly need it to find the right process to cancel once we have some way to do that. But there's no point with having the tag level anymore. Oh,

Re: [HACKERS] SSI patch version 12

2011-01-17 Thread Kevin Grittner
Heikki Linnakangas wrote: Setting the high bit in OldSetXidAdd() seems a bit weird. How about just using UINT64_MAX instead of 0 to mean no conflicts? Or 1, and start the sequence counter from 2. Sure. I think I like reserving 1 and starting at 2 better. Will do.

Re: [HACKERS] SSI patch version 12

2011-01-17 Thread Dan Ports
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 07:20:20PM -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote: OK. I may need to bounce some questions off the list to resolve some of them. The biggest, in my mind, is whether MySerializableXact needs to be declared volatile. I don't have my head around the issues on that as well as I

Re: [HACKERS] SSI patch version 12

2011-01-17 Thread Kevin Grittner
Dan Ports wrote: On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 07:20:20PM -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote: OK. I may need to bounce some questions off the list to resolve some of them. The biggest, in my mind, is whether MySerializableXact needs to be declared volatile. I don't have my head around the issues on that

Re: [HACKERS] SSI patch version 12

2011-01-17 Thread Tom Lane
Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov writes: Dan Ports wrote: The biggest, in my mind, is whether MySerializableXact needs to be declared volatile. The problem is that I don't have a very clear sense of what it really does, which is not helped much by having done a few years of

Re: [HACKERS] SSI patch version 12

2011-01-16 Thread Anssi Kääriäinen
While I haven't tried this patch, I tried to break the version 11 of the patch (some of the work was against earlier versions). In total I have used a full work day just trying to break things, but haven't been able to find anything after version 8. I can verify that the partial index issue is