public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feed[PATCH v9 4/4] WIP: check tuple size
24+ messages / 2 participants
[nested] [flat]
* [PATCH v9 4/4] WIP: check tuple size
@ 2020-12-01 23:20 Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Justin Pryzby @ 2020-12-01 23:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
Or maybe INSERT should flush buffer based only on the *number* of tuples, and
not their size ?
---
src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c | 8 +++++++-
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c b/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
index 2059428e2a..04b0598183 100644
--- a/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
+++ b/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
@@ -703,7 +703,13 @@ ExecInsert(ModifyTableState *mtstate,
batchslot = MultiInsertInfoNextFreeSlot(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo);
ExecCopySlot(batchslot, slot);
- MultiInsertInfoStore(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo, batchslot, 0, 0); // XXX: tuplen/lineno
+ MultiInsertInfoStore(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo, batchslot,
+ // sizeof(void*) * batchslot->tts_nvalid, /* tuple size - underestimate */
+ MemoryContextMemAllocated(batchslot->tts_mcxt, true), /* tuple size */
+ mtstate->ntuples); /* lineno */
+
+ elog(DEBUG2, "bufferedBytes %d; tuples %ld",
+ mtstate->miinfo->bufferedBytes, mtstate->ntuples);
if (MultiInsertInfoIsFull(mtstate->miinfo))
MultiInsertInfoFlush(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo);
--
2.17.0
--3yNHWXBV/QO9xKNm--
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v9 4/4] WIP: check tuple size
@ 2020-12-01 23:20 Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Justin Pryzby @ 2020-12-01 23:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
Or maybe INSERT should flush buffer based only on the *number* of tuples, and
not their size ?
---
src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c | 8 +++++++-
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c b/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
index 2059428e2a..04b0598183 100644
--- a/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
+++ b/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
@@ -703,7 +703,13 @@ ExecInsert(ModifyTableState *mtstate,
batchslot = MultiInsertInfoNextFreeSlot(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo);
ExecCopySlot(batchslot, slot);
- MultiInsertInfoStore(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo, batchslot, 0, 0); // XXX: tuplen/lineno
+ MultiInsertInfoStore(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo, batchslot,
+ // sizeof(void*) * batchslot->tts_nvalid, /* tuple size - underestimate */
+ MemoryContextMemAllocated(batchslot->tts_mcxt, true), /* tuple size */
+ mtstate->ntuples); /* lineno */
+
+ elog(DEBUG2, "bufferedBytes %d; tuples %ld",
+ mtstate->miinfo->bufferedBytes, mtstate->ntuples);
if (MultiInsertInfoIsFull(mtstate->miinfo))
MultiInsertInfoFlush(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo);
--
2.17.0
--3yNHWXBV/QO9xKNm--
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v9 4/4] WIP: check tuple size
@ 2020-12-01 23:20 Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Justin Pryzby @ 2020-12-01 23:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
Or maybe INSERT should flush buffer based only on the *number* of tuples, and
not their size ?
---
src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c | 8 +++++++-
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c b/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
index 2059428e2a..04b0598183 100644
--- a/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
+++ b/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
@@ -703,7 +703,13 @@ ExecInsert(ModifyTableState *mtstate,
batchslot = MultiInsertInfoNextFreeSlot(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo);
ExecCopySlot(batchslot, slot);
- MultiInsertInfoStore(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo, batchslot, 0, 0); // XXX: tuplen/lineno
+ MultiInsertInfoStore(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo, batchslot,
+ // sizeof(void*) * batchslot->tts_nvalid, /* tuple size - underestimate */
+ MemoryContextMemAllocated(batchslot->tts_mcxt, true), /* tuple size */
+ mtstate->ntuples); /* lineno */
+
+ elog(DEBUG2, "bufferedBytes %d; tuples %ld",
+ mtstate->miinfo->bufferedBytes, mtstate->ntuples);
if (MultiInsertInfoIsFull(mtstate->miinfo))
MultiInsertInfoFlush(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo);
--
2.17.0
--3yNHWXBV/QO9xKNm--
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v9 4/4] WIP: check tuple size
@ 2020-12-01 23:20 Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Justin Pryzby @ 2020-12-01 23:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
Or maybe INSERT should flush buffer based only on the *number* of tuples, and
not their size ?
---
src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c | 8 +++++++-
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c b/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
index 2059428e2a..04b0598183 100644
--- a/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
+++ b/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
@@ -703,7 +703,13 @@ ExecInsert(ModifyTableState *mtstate,
batchslot = MultiInsertInfoNextFreeSlot(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo);
ExecCopySlot(batchslot, slot);
- MultiInsertInfoStore(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo, batchslot, 0, 0); // XXX: tuplen/lineno
+ MultiInsertInfoStore(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo, batchslot,
+ // sizeof(void*) * batchslot->tts_nvalid, /* tuple size - underestimate */
+ MemoryContextMemAllocated(batchslot->tts_mcxt, true), /* tuple size */
+ mtstate->ntuples); /* lineno */
+
+ elog(DEBUG2, "bufferedBytes %d; tuples %ld",
+ mtstate->miinfo->bufferedBytes, mtstate->ntuples);
if (MultiInsertInfoIsFull(mtstate->miinfo))
MultiInsertInfoFlush(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo);
--
2.17.0
--3yNHWXBV/QO9xKNm--
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v9 4/4] WIP: check tuple size
@ 2020-12-01 23:20 Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Justin Pryzby @ 2020-12-01 23:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
Or maybe INSERT should flush buffer based only on the *number* of tuples, and
not their size ?
---
src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c | 8 +++++++-
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c b/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
index 2059428e2a..04b0598183 100644
--- a/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
+++ b/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
@@ -703,7 +703,13 @@ ExecInsert(ModifyTableState *mtstate,
batchslot = MultiInsertInfoNextFreeSlot(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo);
ExecCopySlot(batchslot, slot);
- MultiInsertInfoStore(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo, batchslot, 0, 0); // XXX: tuplen/lineno
+ MultiInsertInfoStore(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo, batchslot,
+ // sizeof(void*) * batchslot->tts_nvalid, /* tuple size - underestimate */
+ MemoryContextMemAllocated(batchslot->tts_mcxt, true), /* tuple size */
+ mtstate->ntuples); /* lineno */
+
+ elog(DEBUG2, "bufferedBytes %d; tuples %ld",
+ mtstate->miinfo->bufferedBytes, mtstate->ntuples);
if (MultiInsertInfoIsFull(mtstate->miinfo))
MultiInsertInfoFlush(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo);
--
2.17.0
--3yNHWXBV/QO9xKNm--
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v9 4/4] WIP: check tuple size
@ 2020-12-01 23:20 Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Justin Pryzby @ 2020-12-01 23:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
Or maybe INSERT should flush buffer based only on the *number* of tuples, and
not their size ?
---
src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c | 8 +++++++-
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c b/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
index 2059428e2a..04b0598183 100644
--- a/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
+++ b/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
@@ -703,7 +703,13 @@ ExecInsert(ModifyTableState *mtstate,
batchslot = MultiInsertInfoNextFreeSlot(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo);
ExecCopySlot(batchslot, slot);
- MultiInsertInfoStore(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo, batchslot, 0, 0); // XXX: tuplen/lineno
+ MultiInsertInfoStore(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo, batchslot,
+ // sizeof(void*) * batchslot->tts_nvalid, /* tuple size - underestimate */
+ MemoryContextMemAllocated(batchslot->tts_mcxt, true), /* tuple size */
+ mtstate->ntuples); /* lineno */
+
+ elog(DEBUG2, "bufferedBytes %d; tuples %ld",
+ mtstate->miinfo->bufferedBytes, mtstate->ntuples);
if (MultiInsertInfoIsFull(mtstate->miinfo))
MultiInsertInfoFlush(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo);
--
2.17.0
--3yNHWXBV/QO9xKNm--
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v9 4/4] WIP: check tuple size
@ 2020-12-01 23:20 Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Justin Pryzby @ 2020-12-01 23:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
Or maybe INSERT should flush buffer based only on the *number* of tuples, and
not their size ?
---
src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c | 8 +++++++-
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c b/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
index 2059428e2a..04b0598183 100644
--- a/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
+++ b/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
@@ -703,7 +703,13 @@ ExecInsert(ModifyTableState *mtstate,
batchslot = MultiInsertInfoNextFreeSlot(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo);
ExecCopySlot(batchslot, slot);
- MultiInsertInfoStore(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo, batchslot, 0, 0); // XXX: tuplen/lineno
+ MultiInsertInfoStore(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo, batchslot,
+ // sizeof(void*) * batchslot->tts_nvalid, /* tuple size - underestimate */
+ MemoryContextMemAllocated(batchslot->tts_mcxt, true), /* tuple size */
+ mtstate->ntuples); /* lineno */
+
+ elog(DEBUG2, "bufferedBytes %d; tuples %ld",
+ mtstate->miinfo->bufferedBytes, mtstate->ntuples);
if (MultiInsertInfoIsFull(mtstate->miinfo))
MultiInsertInfoFlush(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo);
--
2.17.0
--3yNHWXBV/QO9xKNm--
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v9 4/4] WIP: check tuple size
@ 2020-12-01 23:20 Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Justin Pryzby @ 2020-12-01 23:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
Or maybe INSERT should flush buffer based only on the *number* of tuples, and
not their size ?
---
src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c | 8 +++++++-
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c b/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
index 2059428e2a..04b0598183 100644
--- a/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
+++ b/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
@@ -703,7 +703,13 @@ ExecInsert(ModifyTableState *mtstate,
batchslot = MultiInsertInfoNextFreeSlot(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo);
ExecCopySlot(batchslot, slot);
- MultiInsertInfoStore(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo, batchslot, 0, 0); // XXX: tuplen/lineno
+ MultiInsertInfoStore(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo, batchslot,
+ // sizeof(void*) * batchslot->tts_nvalid, /* tuple size - underestimate */
+ MemoryContextMemAllocated(batchslot->tts_mcxt, true), /* tuple size */
+ mtstate->ntuples); /* lineno */
+
+ elog(DEBUG2, "bufferedBytes %d; tuples %ld",
+ mtstate->miinfo->bufferedBytes, mtstate->ntuples);
if (MultiInsertInfoIsFull(mtstate->miinfo))
MultiInsertInfoFlush(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo);
--
2.17.0
--3yNHWXBV/QO9xKNm--
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v9 4/4] WIP: check tuple size
@ 2020-12-01 23:20 Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Justin Pryzby @ 2020-12-01 23:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
Or maybe INSERT should flush buffer based only on the *number* of tuples, and
not their size ?
---
src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c | 8 +++++++-
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c b/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
index 2059428e2a..04b0598183 100644
--- a/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
+++ b/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
@@ -703,7 +703,13 @@ ExecInsert(ModifyTableState *mtstate,
batchslot = MultiInsertInfoNextFreeSlot(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo);
ExecCopySlot(batchslot, slot);
- MultiInsertInfoStore(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo, batchslot, 0, 0); // XXX: tuplen/lineno
+ MultiInsertInfoStore(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo, batchslot,
+ // sizeof(void*) * batchslot->tts_nvalid, /* tuple size - underestimate */
+ MemoryContextMemAllocated(batchslot->tts_mcxt, true), /* tuple size */
+ mtstate->ntuples); /* lineno */
+
+ elog(DEBUG2, "bufferedBytes %d; tuples %ld",
+ mtstate->miinfo->bufferedBytes, mtstate->ntuples);
if (MultiInsertInfoIsFull(mtstate->miinfo))
MultiInsertInfoFlush(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo);
--
2.17.0
--3yNHWXBV/QO9xKNm--
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v9 4/4] WIP: check tuple size
@ 2020-12-01 23:20 Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Justin Pryzby @ 2020-12-01 23:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
Or maybe INSERT should flush buffer based only on the *number* of tuples, and
not their size ?
---
src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c | 8 +++++++-
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c b/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
index 2059428e2a..04b0598183 100644
--- a/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
+++ b/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
@@ -703,7 +703,13 @@ ExecInsert(ModifyTableState *mtstate,
batchslot = MultiInsertInfoNextFreeSlot(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo);
ExecCopySlot(batchslot, slot);
- MultiInsertInfoStore(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo, batchslot, 0, 0); // XXX: tuplen/lineno
+ MultiInsertInfoStore(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo, batchslot,
+ // sizeof(void*) * batchslot->tts_nvalid, /* tuple size - underestimate */
+ MemoryContextMemAllocated(batchslot->tts_mcxt, true), /* tuple size */
+ mtstate->ntuples); /* lineno */
+
+ elog(DEBUG2, "bufferedBytes %d; tuples %ld",
+ mtstate->miinfo->bufferedBytes, mtstate->ntuples);
if (MultiInsertInfoIsFull(mtstate->miinfo))
MultiInsertInfoFlush(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo);
--
2.17.0
--3yNHWXBV/QO9xKNm--
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v9 4/4] WIP: check tuple size
@ 2020-12-01 23:20 Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Justin Pryzby @ 2020-12-01 23:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
Or maybe INSERT should flush buffer based only on the *number* of tuples, and
not their size ?
---
src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c | 8 +++++++-
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c b/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
index 2059428e2a..04b0598183 100644
--- a/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
+++ b/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
@@ -703,7 +703,13 @@ ExecInsert(ModifyTableState *mtstate,
batchslot = MultiInsertInfoNextFreeSlot(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo);
ExecCopySlot(batchslot, slot);
- MultiInsertInfoStore(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo, batchslot, 0, 0); // XXX: tuplen/lineno
+ MultiInsertInfoStore(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo, batchslot,
+ // sizeof(void*) * batchslot->tts_nvalid, /* tuple size - underestimate */
+ MemoryContextMemAllocated(batchslot->tts_mcxt, true), /* tuple size */
+ mtstate->ntuples); /* lineno */
+
+ elog(DEBUG2, "bufferedBytes %d; tuples %ld",
+ mtstate->miinfo->bufferedBytes, mtstate->ntuples);
if (MultiInsertInfoIsFull(mtstate->miinfo))
MultiInsertInfoFlush(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo);
--
2.17.0
--3yNHWXBV/QO9xKNm--
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v9 4/4] WIP: check tuple size
@ 2020-12-01 23:20 Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Justin Pryzby @ 2020-12-01 23:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
Or maybe INSERT should flush buffer based only on the *number* of tuples, and
not their size ?
---
src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c | 8 +++++++-
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c b/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
index 2059428e2a..04b0598183 100644
--- a/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
+++ b/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
@@ -703,7 +703,13 @@ ExecInsert(ModifyTableState *mtstate,
batchslot = MultiInsertInfoNextFreeSlot(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo);
ExecCopySlot(batchslot, slot);
- MultiInsertInfoStore(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo, batchslot, 0, 0); // XXX: tuplen/lineno
+ MultiInsertInfoStore(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo, batchslot,
+ // sizeof(void*) * batchslot->tts_nvalid, /* tuple size - underestimate */
+ MemoryContextMemAllocated(batchslot->tts_mcxt, true), /* tuple size */
+ mtstate->ntuples); /* lineno */
+
+ elog(DEBUG2, "bufferedBytes %d; tuples %ld",
+ mtstate->miinfo->bufferedBytes, mtstate->ntuples);
if (MultiInsertInfoIsFull(mtstate->miinfo))
MultiInsertInfoFlush(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo);
--
2.17.0
--3yNHWXBV/QO9xKNm--
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v10 4/4] WIP: check tuple size
@ 2020-12-01 23:20 Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Justin Pryzby @ 2020-12-01 23:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
Or maybe INSERT should flush buffer based only on the *number* of tuples, and
not their size ?
---
src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c | 8 +++++++-
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c b/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
index e018946c0e..ec9e43ac55 100644
--- a/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
+++ b/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
@@ -760,7 +760,13 @@ ExecInsert(ModifyTableState *mtstate,
batchslot = MultiInsertInfoNextFreeSlot(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo);
ExecCopySlot(batchslot, slot);
- MultiInsertInfoStore(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo, batchslot, 0, 0); // XXX: tuplen/lineno
+ MultiInsertInfoStore(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo, batchslot,
+ // sizeof(void*) * batchslot->tts_nvalid, /* tuple size - underestimate */
+ MemoryContextMemAllocated(batchslot->tts_mcxt, true), /* tuple size */
+ mtstate->ntuples); /* lineno */
+
+ elog(DEBUG2, "bufferedBytes %d; tuples %ld",
+ mtstate->miinfo->bufferedBytes, mtstate->ntuples);
if (MultiInsertInfoIsFull(mtstate->miinfo))
MultiInsertInfoFlush(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo);
--
2.17.0
--8nsIa27JVQLqB7/C--
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v9 4/4] WIP: check tuple size
@ 2020-12-01 23:20 Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Justin Pryzby @ 2020-12-01 23:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
Or maybe INSERT should flush buffer based only on the *number* of tuples, and
not their size ?
---
src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c | 8 +++++++-
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c b/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
index 2059428e2a..04b0598183 100644
--- a/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
+++ b/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
@@ -703,7 +703,13 @@ ExecInsert(ModifyTableState *mtstate,
batchslot = MultiInsertInfoNextFreeSlot(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo);
ExecCopySlot(batchslot, slot);
- MultiInsertInfoStore(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo, batchslot, 0, 0); // XXX: tuplen/lineno
+ MultiInsertInfoStore(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo, batchslot,
+ // sizeof(void*) * batchslot->tts_nvalid, /* tuple size - underestimate */
+ MemoryContextMemAllocated(batchslot->tts_mcxt, true), /* tuple size */
+ mtstate->ntuples); /* lineno */
+
+ elog(DEBUG2, "bufferedBytes %d; tuples %ld",
+ mtstate->miinfo->bufferedBytes, mtstate->ntuples);
if (MultiInsertInfoIsFull(mtstate->miinfo))
MultiInsertInfoFlush(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo);
--
2.17.0
--3yNHWXBV/QO9xKNm--
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v9 4/4] WIP: check tuple size
@ 2020-12-01 23:20 Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Justin Pryzby @ 2020-12-01 23:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
Or maybe INSERT should flush buffer based only on the *number* of tuples, and
not their size ?
---
src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c | 8 +++++++-
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c b/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
index 2059428e2a..04b0598183 100644
--- a/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
+++ b/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
@@ -703,7 +703,13 @@ ExecInsert(ModifyTableState *mtstate,
batchslot = MultiInsertInfoNextFreeSlot(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo);
ExecCopySlot(batchslot, slot);
- MultiInsertInfoStore(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo, batchslot, 0, 0); // XXX: tuplen/lineno
+ MultiInsertInfoStore(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo, batchslot,
+ // sizeof(void*) * batchslot->tts_nvalid, /* tuple size - underestimate */
+ MemoryContextMemAllocated(batchslot->tts_mcxt, true), /* tuple size */
+ mtstate->ntuples); /* lineno */
+
+ elog(DEBUG2, "bufferedBytes %d; tuples %ld",
+ mtstate->miinfo->bufferedBytes, mtstate->ntuples);
if (MultiInsertInfoIsFull(mtstate->miinfo))
MultiInsertInfoFlush(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo);
--
2.17.0
--3yNHWXBV/QO9xKNm--
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v9 4/4] WIP: check tuple size
@ 2020-12-01 23:20 Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Justin Pryzby @ 2020-12-01 23:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
Or maybe INSERT should flush buffer based only on the *number* of tuples, and
not their size ?
---
src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c | 8 +++++++-
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c b/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
index 2059428e2a..04b0598183 100644
--- a/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
+++ b/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
@@ -703,7 +703,13 @@ ExecInsert(ModifyTableState *mtstate,
batchslot = MultiInsertInfoNextFreeSlot(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo);
ExecCopySlot(batchslot, slot);
- MultiInsertInfoStore(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo, batchslot, 0, 0); // XXX: tuplen/lineno
+ MultiInsertInfoStore(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo, batchslot,
+ // sizeof(void*) * batchslot->tts_nvalid, /* tuple size - underestimate */
+ MemoryContextMemAllocated(batchslot->tts_mcxt, true), /* tuple size */
+ mtstate->ntuples); /* lineno */
+
+ elog(DEBUG2, "bufferedBytes %d; tuples %ld",
+ mtstate->miinfo->bufferedBytes, mtstate->ntuples);
if (MultiInsertInfoIsFull(mtstate->miinfo))
MultiInsertInfoFlush(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo);
--
2.17.0
--3yNHWXBV/QO9xKNm--
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v9 4/4] WIP: check tuple size
@ 2020-12-01 23:20 Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Justin Pryzby @ 2020-12-01 23:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
Or maybe INSERT should flush buffer based only on the *number* of tuples, and
not their size ?
---
src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c | 8 +++++++-
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c b/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
index 2059428e2a..04b0598183 100644
--- a/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
+++ b/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
@@ -703,7 +703,13 @@ ExecInsert(ModifyTableState *mtstate,
batchslot = MultiInsertInfoNextFreeSlot(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo);
ExecCopySlot(batchslot, slot);
- MultiInsertInfoStore(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo, batchslot, 0, 0); // XXX: tuplen/lineno
+ MultiInsertInfoStore(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo, batchslot,
+ // sizeof(void*) * batchslot->tts_nvalid, /* tuple size - underestimate */
+ MemoryContextMemAllocated(batchslot->tts_mcxt, true), /* tuple size */
+ mtstate->ntuples); /* lineno */
+
+ elog(DEBUG2, "bufferedBytes %d; tuples %ld",
+ mtstate->miinfo->bufferedBytes, mtstate->ntuples);
if (MultiInsertInfoIsFull(mtstate->miinfo))
MultiInsertInfoFlush(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo);
--
2.17.0
--3yNHWXBV/QO9xKNm--
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v9 4/4] WIP: check tuple size
@ 2020-12-01 23:20 Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Justin Pryzby @ 2020-12-01 23:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
Or maybe INSERT should flush buffer based only on the *number* of tuples, and
not their size ?
---
src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c | 8 +++++++-
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c b/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
index 2059428e2a..04b0598183 100644
--- a/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
+++ b/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
@@ -703,7 +703,13 @@ ExecInsert(ModifyTableState *mtstate,
batchslot = MultiInsertInfoNextFreeSlot(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo);
ExecCopySlot(batchslot, slot);
- MultiInsertInfoStore(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo, batchslot, 0, 0); // XXX: tuplen/lineno
+ MultiInsertInfoStore(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo, batchslot,
+ // sizeof(void*) * batchslot->tts_nvalid, /* tuple size - underestimate */
+ MemoryContextMemAllocated(batchslot->tts_mcxt, true), /* tuple size */
+ mtstate->ntuples); /* lineno */
+
+ elog(DEBUG2, "bufferedBytes %d; tuples %ld",
+ mtstate->miinfo->bufferedBytes, mtstate->ntuples);
if (MultiInsertInfoIsFull(mtstate->miinfo))
MultiInsertInfoFlush(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo);
--
2.17.0
--3yNHWXBV/QO9xKNm--
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v9 4/4] WIP: check tuple size
@ 2020-12-01 23:20 Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Justin Pryzby @ 2020-12-01 23:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
Or maybe INSERT should flush buffer based only on the *number* of tuples, and
not their size ?
---
src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c | 8 +++++++-
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c b/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
index 2059428e2a..04b0598183 100644
--- a/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
+++ b/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
@@ -703,7 +703,13 @@ ExecInsert(ModifyTableState *mtstate,
batchslot = MultiInsertInfoNextFreeSlot(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo);
ExecCopySlot(batchslot, slot);
- MultiInsertInfoStore(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo, batchslot, 0, 0); // XXX: tuplen/lineno
+ MultiInsertInfoStore(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo, batchslot,
+ // sizeof(void*) * batchslot->tts_nvalid, /* tuple size - underestimate */
+ MemoryContextMemAllocated(batchslot->tts_mcxt, true), /* tuple size */
+ mtstate->ntuples); /* lineno */
+
+ elog(DEBUG2, "bufferedBytes %d; tuples %ld",
+ mtstate->miinfo->bufferedBytes, mtstate->ntuples);
if (MultiInsertInfoIsFull(mtstate->miinfo))
MultiInsertInfoFlush(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo);
--
2.17.0
--3yNHWXBV/QO9xKNm--
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v8 4/4] WIP: check tuple size
@ 2020-12-01 23:20 Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Justin Pryzby @ 2020-12-01 23:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
Or maybe INSERT should flush buffer based only on the *number* of tuples, and
not their size ?
---
src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c | 8 +++++++-
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c b/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
index 47a5271b91..b4f523e32d 100644
--- a/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
+++ b/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
@@ -703,7 +703,13 @@ ExecInsert(ModifyTableState *mtstate,
batchslot = MultiInsertInfoNextFreeSlot(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo);
ExecCopySlot(batchslot, slot);
- MultiInsertInfoStore(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo, batchslot, 0, 0); // XXX: tuplen/lineno
+ MultiInsertInfoStore(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo, batchslot,
+ // sizeof(void*) * batchslot->tts_nvalid, /* tuple size - underestimate */
+ MemoryContextMemAllocated(batchslot->tts_mcxt, true), /* tuple size */
+ mtstate->ntuples); /* lineno */
+
+ elog(DEBUG2, "bufferedBytes %d; tuples %ld",
+ mtstate->miinfo->bufferedBytes, mtstate->ntuples);
if (MultiInsertInfoIsFull(mtstate->miinfo))
MultiInsertInfoFlush(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo);
--
2.17.0
--AZuoSAvZwvV/ife4--
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v9 4/4] WIP: check tuple size
@ 2020-12-01 23:20 Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Justin Pryzby @ 2020-12-01 23:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
Or maybe INSERT should flush buffer based only on the *number* of tuples, and
not their size ?
---
src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c | 8 +++++++-
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c b/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
index 2059428e2a..04b0598183 100644
--- a/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
+++ b/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
@@ -703,7 +703,13 @@ ExecInsert(ModifyTableState *mtstate,
batchslot = MultiInsertInfoNextFreeSlot(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo);
ExecCopySlot(batchslot, slot);
- MultiInsertInfoStore(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo, batchslot, 0, 0); // XXX: tuplen/lineno
+ MultiInsertInfoStore(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo, batchslot,
+ // sizeof(void*) * batchslot->tts_nvalid, /* tuple size - underestimate */
+ MemoryContextMemAllocated(batchslot->tts_mcxt, true), /* tuple size */
+ mtstate->ntuples); /* lineno */
+
+ elog(DEBUG2, "bufferedBytes %d; tuples %ld",
+ mtstate->miinfo->bufferedBytes, mtstate->ntuples);
if (MultiInsertInfoIsFull(mtstate->miinfo))
MultiInsertInfoFlush(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo);
--
2.17.0
--3yNHWXBV/QO9xKNm--
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v9 4/4] WIP: check tuple size
@ 2020-12-01 23:20 Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Justin Pryzby @ 2020-12-01 23:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
Or maybe INSERT should flush buffer based only on the *number* of tuples, and
not their size ?
---
src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c | 8 +++++++-
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c b/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
index 2059428e2a..04b0598183 100644
--- a/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
+++ b/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
@@ -703,7 +703,13 @@ ExecInsert(ModifyTableState *mtstate,
batchslot = MultiInsertInfoNextFreeSlot(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo);
ExecCopySlot(batchslot, slot);
- MultiInsertInfoStore(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo, batchslot, 0, 0); // XXX: tuplen/lineno
+ MultiInsertInfoStore(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo, batchslot,
+ // sizeof(void*) * batchslot->tts_nvalid, /* tuple size - underestimate */
+ MemoryContextMemAllocated(batchslot->tts_mcxt, true), /* tuple size */
+ mtstate->ntuples); /* lineno */
+
+ elog(DEBUG2, "bufferedBytes %d; tuples %ld",
+ mtstate->miinfo->bufferedBytes, mtstate->ntuples);
if (MultiInsertInfoIsFull(mtstate->miinfo))
MultiInsertInfoFlush(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo);
--
2.17.0
--3yNHWXBV/QO9xKNm--
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v9 4/4] WIP: check tuple size
@ 2020-12-01 23:20 Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Justin Pryzby @ 2020-12-01 23:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
Or maybe INSERT should flush buffer based only on the *number* of tuples, and
not their size ?
---
src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c | 8 +++++++-
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c b/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
index 2059428e2a..04b0598183 100644
--- a/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
+++ b/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
@@ -703,7 +703,13 @@ ExecInsert(ModifyTableState *mtstate,
batchslot = MultiInsertInfoNextFreeSlot(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo);
ExecCopySlot(batchslot, slot);
- MultiInsertInfoStore(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo, batchslot, 0, 0); // XXX: tuplen/lineno
+ MultiInsertInfoStore(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo, batchslot,
+ // sizeof(void*) * batchslot->tts_nvalid, /* tuple size - underestimate */
+ MemoryContextMemAllocated(batchslot->tts_mcxt, true), /* tuple size */
+ mtstate->ntuples); /* lineno */
+
+ elog(DEBUG2, "bufferedBytes %d; tuples %ld",
+ mtstate->miinfo->bufferedBytes, mtstate->ntuples);
if (MultiInsertInfoIsFull(mtstate->miinfo))
MultiInsertInfoFlush(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo);
--
2.17.0
--3yNHWXBV/QO9xKNm--
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: libpq: Fix lots of discrepancies in PQtrace
@ 2024-08-16 00:05 Alvaro Herrera <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Alvaro Herrera @ 2024-08-16 00:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jelte Fennema-Nio <[email protected]>; +Cc: Michael Paquier <[email protected]>; Nathan Bossart <[email protected]>; PostgreSQL Hackers <[email protected]>
Hello,
On 2024-Aug-14, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
> The following removed comments seems useful to keep (I realize I
> already removed them in a previous version of the patch, but I don't
> think I did that on purpose)
> [...]
Ah, yeah, I agree. I put them back, and pushed 0005, 6 and 7 as a
single commit. It didn't seem worth pushing each separately, really. I
added two lines for the CopyData message as well, since otherwise the
output shows the "mismatched length" error when getting COPY data.
I'm leaving 0008 to whoever is doing the NegotiateProtocolVersion stuff;
maybe post that one in that thread you mentioned. I'll mark this CF
entry committed.
Many thanks!
--
Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2024-08-16 00:05 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2020-12-01 23:20 [PATCH v9 4/4] WIP: check tuple size Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
2020-12-01 23:20 [PATCH v9 4/4] WIP: check tuple size Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
2020-12-01 23:20 [PATCH v9 4/4] WIP: check tuple size Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
2020-12-01 23:20 [PATCH v9 4/4] WIP: check tuple size Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
2020-12-01 23:20 [PATCH v9 4/4] WIP: check tuple size Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
2020-12-01 23:20 [PATCH v9 4/4] WIP: check tuple size Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
2020-12-01 23:20 [PATCH v9 4/4] WIP: check tuple size Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
2020-12-01 23:20 [PATCH v9 4/4] WIP: check tuple size Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
2020-12-01 23:20 [PATCH v9 4/4] WIP: check tuple size Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
2020-12-01 23:20 [PATCH v9 4/4] WIP: check tuple size Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
2020-12-01 23:20 [PATCH v9 4/4] WIP: check tuple size Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
2020-12-01 23:20 [PATCH v9 4/4] WIP: check tuple size Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
2020-12-01 23:20 [PATCH v10 4/4] WIP: check tuple size Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
2020-12-01 23:20 [PATCH v9 4/4] WIP: check tuple size Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
2020-12-01 23:20 [PATCH v9 4/4] WIP: check tuple size Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
2020-12-01 23:20 [PATCH v9 4/4] WIP: check tuple size Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
2020-12-01 23:20 [PATCH v9 4/4] WIP: check tuple size Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
2020-12-01 23:20 [PATCH v9 4/4] WIP: check tuple size Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
2020-12-01 23:20 [PATCH v9 4/4] WIP: check tuple size Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
2020-12-01 23:20 [PATCH v8 4/4] WIP: check tuple size Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
2020-12-01 23:20 [PATCH v9 4/4] WIP: check tuple size Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
2020-12-01 23:20 [PATCH v9 4/4] WIP: check tuple size Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
2020-12-01 23:20 [PATCH v9 4/4] WIP: check tuple size Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
2024-08-16 00:05 Re: libpq: Fix lots of discrepancies in PQtrace Alvaro Herrera <[email protected]>
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox