public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

[PATCH v8 4/4] WIP: check tuple size
23+ messages / 1 participants
[nested] [flat]

* [PATCH v9 4/4] WIP: check tuple size
@ 2020-12-01 23:20 Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ 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] 23+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v9 4/4] WIP: check tuple size
@ 2020-12-01 23:20 Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ 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] 23+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v9 4/4] WIP: check tuple size
@ 2020-12-01 23:20 Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ 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] 23+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v9 4/4] WIP: check tuple size
@ 2020-12-01 23:20 Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ 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] 23+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v9 4/4] WIP: check tuple size
@ 2020-12-01 23:20 Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ 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] 23+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v10 4/4] WIP: check tuple size
@ 2020-12-01 23:20 Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ 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] 23+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v9 4/4] WIP: check tuple size
@ 2020-12-01 23:20 Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ 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] 23+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v9 4/4] WIP: check tuple size
@ 2020-12-01 23:20 Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ 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] 23+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v9 4/4] WIP: check tuple size
@ 2020-12-01 23:20 Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ 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] 23+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v9 4/4] WIP: check tuple size
@ 2020-12-01 23:20 Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ 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] 23+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v9 4/4] WIP: check tuple size
@ 2020-12-01 23:20 Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ 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] 23+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v8 4/4] WIP: check tuple size
@ 2020-12-01 23:20 Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ 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] 23+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v9 4/4] WIP: check tuple size
@ 2020-12-01 23:20 Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ 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] 23+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v9 4/4] WIP: check tuple size
@ 2020-12-01 23:20 Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ 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] 23+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v9 4/4] WIP: check tuple size
@ 2020-12-01 23:20 Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ 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] 23+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v9 4/4] WIP: check tuple size
@ 2020-12-01 23:20 Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ 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] 23+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v9 4/4] WIP: check tuple size
@ 2020-12-01 23:20 Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ 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] 23+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v9 4/4] WIP: check tuple size
@ 2020-12-01 23:20 Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ 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] 23+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v9 4/4] WIP: check tuple size
@ 2020-12-01 23:20 Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ 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] 23+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v9 4/4] WIP: check tuple size
@ 2020-12-01 23:20 Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ 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] 23+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v9 4/4] WIP: check tuple size
@ 2020-12-01 23:20 Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ 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] 23+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v9 4/4] WIP: check tuple size
@ 2020-12-01 23:20 Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ 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] 23+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v9 4/4] WIP: check tuple size
@ 2020-12-01 23:20 Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ 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] 23+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2020-12-01 23:20 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 23+ 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 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 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]>

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