Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions
Date: 2020-08-21 03:44:25
Message-ID: CAA4eK1+_+UMKb_48pKeCL=M5KfttEMUjuhxUumdOhE5fj_KYVA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 5:42 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 2:30 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Right, I think this can happen if one has changed those by BufFileSeek
> > before doing truncate. We should fix that case as well.
>
> Right.
>
> > > I will work on those along with your other comments and
> > > submit the updated patch.
>
> I have fixed this in the attached patch along with your other
> comments. I have also attached a contrib module that is just used for
> testing the truncate API.
>

Few comments:
==============
+void
+BufFileTruncateShared(BufFile *file, int fileno, off_t offset)
{
..
+ if ((i != fileno || offset == 0) && i != 0)
+ {
+ SharedSegmentName(segment_name, file->name, i);
+ FileClose(file->files[i]);
+ if (!SharedFileSetDelete(file->fileset, segment_name, true))
+ ereport(ERROR,
+ (errcode_for_file_access(),
+ errmsg("could not delete shared fileset \"%s\": %m",
+ segment_name)));
+ numFiles--;
+ newOffset = MAX_PHYSICAL_FILESIZE;
+
+ if (i == fileno)
+ newFile--;
+ }

Here, shouldn't it be i <= fileno? Because we need to move back the
curFile up to newFile whenever curFile is greater than newFile

2.
+ /*
+ * If the new location is smaller then the current location in file then
+ * we need to set the curFile and the curOffset to the new values and also
+ * reset the pos and nbytes. Otherwise nothing to do.
+ */
+ else if ((newFile < file->curFile) ||
+ newOffset < file->curOffset + file->pos)
+ {
+ file->curFile = newFile;
+ file->curOffset = newOffset;
+ file->pos = 0;
+ file->nbytes = 0;
+ }

Shouldn't there be && instead of || because if newFile is greater than
curFile then there is no meaning to update it?

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2020-08-21 03:58:10 Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions
Previous Message Fujii Masao 2020-08-21 03:39:37 Re: Fix typo in procarrary.c