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 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
* [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 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
* Re: Feature-test macros for new-in-v17 libpq features @ 2024-08-22 17:22 Jacob Champion <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Jacob Champion @ 2024-08-22 17:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tom Lane <[email protected]>; +Cc: [email protected] On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 10:16 AM Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote: > > In connection with that last point, I wonder if we should include > commentary about when things came in. I'd originally thought of > just inserting the above names in alphabetical order, but now I > wonder if the patch ought to look more like > > */ > +/* Features added in PostgreSQL v14: */ > /* Indicates presence of PQenterPipelineMode and friends */ > #define LIBPQ_HAS_PIPELINING 1 > /* Indicates presence of PQsetTraceFlags; also new PQtrace output format */ > #define LIBPQ_HAS_TRACE_FLAGS 1 > +/* Features added in PostgreSQL v15: */ > /* Indicates that PQsslAttribute(NULL, "library") is useful */ > #define LIBPQ_HAS_SSL_LIBRARY_DETECTION 1 > +/* Features added in PostgreSQL v17: */ > + ... as above ... +1, I like the new headers and keeping the version order. Thanks! --Jacob ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2024-08-22 17:22 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 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]> 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 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]> 2024-08-22 17:22 Re: Feature-test macros for new-in-v17 libpq features Jacob Champion <[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