Subject: Re: [BUG] Failed Assertion in ReorderBufferChangeMemoryUpdate()
From: "Drouvot, Bertrand" <bdrouvot@amazon.com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
CC: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers
	<pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
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>
 <51babafd-4c0c-9b69-ec5c-5e4740d2606b@amazon.com>
 <CAA4eK1L9JbhsHZpeaFrAMc7ZrPUHqd6AAERxqwZQ5n9J4=X1-g@mail.gmail.com>
 <7e2a1da1-80e1-64c4-1512-78e47a6711d4@amazon.com>
 <36ed78a0-5781-11d8-4842-afce849fb0c7@amazon.com>
 <CAA4eK1L5s=CGM-q+zC=Vsr3e5_SMwMV_w_aFpge=R4rHHNyUNQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <f2dbb309-2152-08a9-c985-474ba60eab53@amazon.com>
Message-ID: <bd102773-1a0b-1562-b2d6-2044bb839354@amazon.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2021 08:34:44 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <f2dbb309-2152-08a9-c985-474ba60eab53@amazon.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/bd102773-1a0b-1562-b2d6-2044bb839354%40amazon.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On 9/9/21 3:16 PM, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 9/9/21 1:16 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 2:02 PM Drouvot, Bertrand 
>> <bdrouvot@amazon.com> wrote:
>>> On 9/7/21 9:11 AM, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
>>> Please find enclosed patch v2 (for the master branch) implementing the
>>> modified approach of option 2) proposed by Amit.
>>>
>> The patch looks good to me. I have made a minor modification in the
>> comment to make it explicit why we are not subtracting the size
>> immediately
>
> Thanks!
>
> Indeed, good point to also mention in the comment why it has been done 
> that way.
>
>> Kindly prepare back-branch patches and
>> test the same.
>
> Please find enclosed the modified (and tested) version for the 
> REL_13_STABLE branch (the master patch version also applied on 
> REL_14_STABLE).
>
I've seen that the patches have been committed, thanks!

I'm marking the corresponding CF entry as committed.

Thanks

Bertrand