Re: Parallel Append implementation

From: Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar(dot)raghuwanshi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Parallel Append implementation
Date: 2017-03-24 07:53:01
Message-ID: CAJ3gD9c2ZJMVcsQA_6L4RmFuqdYW98BAFwL0SJ-K8YWmfCpuBA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 24 March 2017 at 13:11, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi
<rajkumar(dot)raghuwanshi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> I have given patch on latest pg sources (on commit
> 457a4448732881b5008f7a3bcca76fc299075ac3). configure and make all
> install ran successfully, but initdb failed with below error.

> FailedAssertion("!(LWLockTranchesAllocated >=
> LWTRANCHE_FIRST_USER_DEFINED)", File: "lwlock.c", Line: 501)

Thanks for reporting, Rajkumar.

With the new PARALLEL_APPEND tranche ID, LWTRANCHE_FIRST_USER_DEFINED
value has crossed the value 64. So we need to increase the initial
size of LWLockTrancheArray from 64 to 128. Attached is the updated
patch.

Attachment Content-Type Size
ParallelAppend_v11.patch application/octet-stream 56.9 KB

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2017-03-24 07:54:59 Re: pageinspect and hash indexes
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2017-03-24 07:49:59 Re: segfault in hot standby for hash indexes