On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 6:57 PM, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 8:37 PM, Haribabu Kommi
> wrote:
> > After I tune the GUC to go with sequence scan, still I am not getting the
> > error
> > in the session-2 for update operation like it used to generate an error
> for
> > parallel
>
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 8:37 PM, Haribabu Kommi
wrote:
> After I tune the GUC to go with sequence scan, still I am not getting the
> error
> in the session-2 for update operation like it used to generate an error for
> parallel
> sequential scan, and also it even takes some many commands until unl
On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 4:13 PM, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 1:47 PM, Haribabu Kommi
> wrote:
> > During testing of this patch, I found some behavior difference
> > with the support of parallel query, while experimenting with the provided
> > test case in the patch.
> >
> > But
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 1:47 PM, Haribabu Kommi
wrote:
> During testing of this patch, I found some behavior difference
> with the support of parallel query, while experimenting with the provided
> test case in the patch.
>
> But I tested the V6 patch, and I don't think that this version contains
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Thomas Munro <
thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 5:11 PM, Thomas Munro
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Thomas Munro
> > wrote:
> >> [ssi-parallel-v5.patch]
> >
> > Rebased.
>
> Rebased again.
>
During testing of this
On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 5:11 PM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Thomas Munro
> wrote:
>> [ssi-parallel-v5.patch]
>
> Rebased.
Rebased again.
--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com
ssi-parallel-v7.patch
Description: Binary data
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> [ssi-parallel-v5.patch]
Rebased.
--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com
ssi-parallel-v6.patch
Description: Binary data
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
htt
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 8:25 AM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> ... but considering that these data structures may
> finish up being redesigned as part of the GSoC project[1], it may be
> best to wait and see where that goes before doing anything. I'll
> follow developments there, and if this patch remains
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 8:19 PM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I don't think I know enough about the serializable code to review
>> this, or at least not quickly, but it seems very cool if it works.
>> Have you checked what effect it has on shared me
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 6:41 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2017-03-11 15:19:23 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
>> Here is a rebased patch.
>
> It seems that this patch is still undergoing development, review and
> performance evaluation. Therefore it seems like it'd be a bad idea to
> try to ge
Hi,
On 2017-03-11 15:19:23 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> Here is a rebased patch.
It seems that this patch is still undergoing development, review and
performance evaluation. Therefore it seems like it'd be a bad idea to
try to get this into v10. Any arguments against moving this to the next
CF?
On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> I don't think I know enough about the serializable code to review
> this, or at least not quickly, but it seems very cool if it works.
> Have you checked what effect it has on shared memory consumption?
I'm not sure how to test that. Kevin, c
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 12:55 AM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Thomas Munro
> wrote:
>> Specifically, DeleteChildTargetLocks() assumes it can walk
>> MySerializableXact->predicateLocks and throw away locks that are
>> covered by a new lock (ie throw away tuple locks beca
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> Specifically, DeleteChildTargetLocks() assumes it can walk
> MySerializableXact->predicateLocks and throw away locks that are
> covered by a new lock (ie throw away tuple locks because a covering
> page lock has been acquired) without let or h
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 2:58 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 4:51 PM, Thomas Munro
> wrote:
>> Currently we don't generate parallel plans in SERIALIZABLE. What
>> problems need to be solved to be able to do that? I'm probably
>> steamrolling over a ton of subtleties and assumpti
On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 4:51 PM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> Currently we don't generate parallel plans in SERIALIZABLE. What
> problems need to be solved to be able to do that? I'm probably
> steamrolling over a ton of subtleties and assumptions here, but it
> occurred to me that a first step might be
On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 1:51 PM, Thomas Munro
> wrote:
>> Currently we don't generate parallel plans in SERIALIZABLE. What
>> problems need to be solved to be able to do that?
>
> FWIW, parallel CREATE INDEX works at SERIALIZABLE isolation
On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> Need to audit predicate.c for cases where
> MySerializableXact might be modified without suitable locking,
The only thing I see along those lines is that
CheckForSerializableConflictOut() and CheckForSerializableConflictIn()
access SxactIsDoo
On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 1:51 PM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> Currently we don't generate parallel plans in SERIALIZABLE. What
> problems need to be solved to be able to do that?
FWIW, parallel CREATE INDEX works at SERIALIZABLE isolation level by
specially asking the parallel infrastructure to not care
19 matches
Mail list logo