pg.ddx.io  pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Drouvot, Bertrand <bdrouvot@amazon.com>
To: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [BUG] Failed Assertion in ReorderBufferChangeMemoryUpdate()
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2021 08:03:38 +0200
Message-ID: <51babafd-4c0c-9b69-ec5c-5e4740d2606b@amazon.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFiTN-smGWa8zYVsQVm7qRdXsr7JD8sokcKdfBhyF1onRORGdw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <92b0ee65-b8bd-e42d-c082-4f3f4bf12d34@amazon.com>
	<CAA4eK1LfzPdTO73vW2qUkJeB1k1iL04rmqVJseBbF5qRAonmiw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFiTN-uoTz0bUtOoZxJcB7kPt9xMrKsDATTXoJfktJtPOfC_bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<73dcd904-cfee-21f2-d363-317cd517cb00@amazon.com>
	<CAFiTN-vMGg3EEe4icesj4LJ_g0JWYq0SqHEPbtQzm+fwfaz4cg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAA4eK1KDYWp4mtCOpGymMHXd1oi_Wqy+LS7X-NwpF=pp2MSJSg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFiTN-uZmCkLG=7Ak32tyE+KT38XhZ48pZTc7OLuX3zvDXSwRQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAA4eK1L_HHFnZB+B68h9qv_qqkLbjYbw7M653+LjM93_N4OzNg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFiTN-smGWa8zYVsQVm7qRdXsr7JD8sokcKdfBhyF1onRORGdw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

On 9/7/21 7:58 AM, Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 11:10 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com 
> <mailto:amit.kapila16@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     >> Isn't it better if we use option 2) at all places as then we won't
>     >> need any special check inside ReorderBufferChangeMemoryUpdate()?
>     >
>     >
>     > If we want to do this then be careful about
>     REORDER_BUFFER_CHANGE_INTERNAL_TUPLECID change. Basically,
>     ReorderBufferChangeMemoryUpdate() ignores this type of change
>     whereas ReorderBufferChangeSize(), consider at least
>     sizeof(ReorderBufferChange) bytes to this change.  So if we
>     compute the size using ReorderBufferChangeSize() outside of
>     ReorderBufferChangeMemoryUpdate(), then total size will be
>     different from what we have now.   Logically, we should be
>     ignoring/asserting REORDER_BUFFER_CHANGE_INTERNAL_TUPLECID in
>     ReorderBufferChangeSize(), because
>     ReorderBufferChangeMemoryUpdate() is the only caller for this
>     function.
>     >
>
>     Why can't we simply ignore it in ReorderBufferChangeMemoryUpdate() as
>     we are doing now?
>
>
> Yeah right, we can actually do that, it doesn't matter even if we are 
> passing the size from outside.

Agree, if no objections, I'll prepare a patch with the modified approach 
of option 2) proposed by Amit (means passing the size from the outside 
in all the cases).

Thanks

Bertrand

view thread (19+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <51babafd-4c0c-9b69-ec5c-5e4740d2606b@amazon.com>
Permalink:  ../51babafd-4c0c-9b69-ec5c-5e4740d2606b@amazon.com/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/51babafd-4c0c-9b69-ec5c-5e4740d2606b@amazon.com

 · 

reply
Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
  Cc: bdrouvot@amazon.com, dilipbalaut@gmail.com, amit.kapila16@gmail.com, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
  Subject: Re: [BUG] Failed Assertion in ReorderBufferChangeMemoryUpdate()
  In-Reply-To: <51babafd-4c0c-9b69-ec5c-5e4740d2606b@amazon.com>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox