Re: [HACKERS] GIN logging GIN_SEGMENT_UNMODIFIED actions?

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 10:24 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Fujii Masao writes: >> I applied your suggested changes into the patch. Patch attached. > > That looks pretty sane to me (but I just eyeballed it, didn't test). > > One further minor improvement would

Re: [HACKERS] GIN logging GIN_SEGMENT_UNMODIFIED actions?

Fujii Masao writes: > I applied your suggested changes into the patch. Patch attached. That looks pretty sane to me (but I just eyeballed it, didn't test). One further minor improvement would be to rearrange the XLOG_GIN_VACUUM_DATA_LEAF_PAGE case so that we don't bother

Re: [HACKERS] GIN logging GIN_SEGMENT_UNMODIFIED actions?

On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 8:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Fujii Masao writes: >> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 12:10 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Hmm, comparing gin_desc() to ginRedoInsert() makes me think there are more >>> problems there than that

Re: [HACKERS] GIN logging GIN_SEGMENT_UNMODIFIED actions?

Fujii Masao writes: > On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 12:10 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Hmm, comparing gin_desc() to ginRedoInsert() makes me think there are more >> problems there than that one. Aren't the references to "payload" wrong >> in all three branches of

Re: [HACKERS] GIN logging GIN_SEGMENT_UNMODIFIED actions?

On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 12:10 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Fujii Masao writes: >> I found that pg_xlogdump code for XLOG_GIN_INSERT record with >> GIN_INSERT_ISLEAF flag has the same issue, i.e., >> "unknown action 0" error is thrown for that record. >> The

Re: [HACKERS] GIN logging GIN_SEGMENT_UNMODIFIED actions?

Fujii Masao writes: > I found that pg_xlogdump code for XLOG_GIN_INSERT record with > GIN_INSERT_ISLEAF flag has the same issue, i.e., > "unknown action 0" error is thrown for that record. > The latest patch fixes this. Hmm, comparing gin_desc() to ginRedoInsert() makes me

Re: [HACKERS] GIN logging GIN_SEGMENT_UNMODIFIED actions?

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Fujii Masao wrote: > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 3:39 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Fujii Masao writes: >>> ISTM that the cause of this issue is that gin_desc() uses XLogRecGetData() >>> to >>> extract

Re: [HACKERS] GIN logging GIN_SEGMENT_UNMODIFIED actions?

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 3:39 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Fujii Masao writes: >> ISTM that the cause of this issue is that gin_desc() uses XLogRecGetData() to >> extract ginxlogVacuumDataLeafPage data from XLOG_GIN_VACUUM_DATA_LEAF_PAGE >> record. Since it's

Re: [HACKERS] GIN logging GIN_SEGMENT_UNMODIFIED actions?

Fujii Masao writes: > ISTM that the cause of this issue is that gin_desc() uses XLogRecGetData() to > extract ginxlogVacuumDataLeafPage data from XLOG_GIN_VACUUM_DATA_LEAF_PAGE > record. Since it's registered by XLogRegisterBufData() in > ginVacuumPostingTreeLeaf(), >

Re: [HACKERS] GIN logging GIN_SEGMENT_UNMODIFIED actions?

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 11:35 PM, Fujii Masao wrote: > On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 9:57 PM, Alexander Korotkov > wrote: >> Hi! >> >> On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 10:46 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >>> >>> trying to debug something I saw

Re: [HACKERS] GIN logging GIN_SEGMENT_UNMODIFIED actions?

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 9:57 PM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > Hi! > > On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 10:46 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >> >> trying to debug something I saw the following in pg_xlogdump output: >> >> rmgr: Gin len (rec/tot): 0/

Re: [HACKERS] GIN logging GIN_SEGMENT_UNMODIFIED actions?

Hi! On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 10:46 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > trying to debug something I saw the following in pg_xlogdump output: > > rmgr: Gin len (rec/tot): 0/ 274, tx: 0, lsn: > 1C/DF28AEB0, prev 1C/DF289858, desc: VACUUM_DATA_LEAF_PAGE 3 segments:

[HACKERS] GIN logging GIN_SEGMENT_UNMODIFIED actions?

Hi, trying to debug something I saw the following in pg_xlogdump output: rmgr: Gin len (rec/tot): 0/ 274, tx: 0, lsn: 1C/DF28AEB0, prev 1C/DF289858, desc: VACUUM_DATA_LEAF_PAGE 3 segments: 5 unknown action 0 ???, blkref #0: rel 1663/16384/16435 blk 310982 note the