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

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>
To: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>
Cc: postgres performance list <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Yet another abort-early plan disaster on 9.3
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2014 17:46:34 -0800
Message-ID: <5487A5FA.8080603@agliodbs.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <WM!7997619bd19b83c317e8a676008e2ba3d8a55a8884a11466de79c7e0c92e684e0d1978cfd3a1131a98d7ebb3cd5eeac7!@asav-1.01.com>
References: <541A2335.3060100@agliodbs.com>
	<WM!1ae41f8d6a3ccc4760aa921f5bee325497ff91ea6bb56959742bfe645e3727f092c347cf598f62aba805d5b6535ebc8f!@asav-1.01.com>
	<541DC87F.3030800@agliodbs.com>
	<CAHyXU0xh8kFG6jiH3CLswTPiZTxJYsP==uaZP_w_FxHc0Kyqxg@mail.gmail.com>
	<WM!aa8d66f3329082c248d8e57896b3051be5691fe6550231e4f7388b7a9339864c4c89748426e4ef897c484b8998b7f996!@asav-1.01.com>
	<5420B71C.6010208@agliodbs.com>
	<CA+U5nMJqYiViG8Xu=OqJo5o7NbKgrBYC=Kn6nx-4AtKXidWvtw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAHyXU0wFAKiwgybbEAX=597-MxtPGdf0bmQvRSJq9db1KTZ6nA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+U5nMKnwZVkvdaQP7Sm15-Emdwt+TgnW7-0xQJvZPtHu2Wsvw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+U5nMKiLkryw=Xq3-M4rWGF+rmxMfDy0DMeViv_JmMxdERgyA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAHyXU0yjuCwH47qv=Lnx3BaSu69CfdKadc11oveTcB9T4K0hGQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+U5nM+A4PFbOqy_8MVjAv=tCeV-OwmSROfBmW2Ei+jKu1RqKQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<WM!7997619bd19b83c317e8a676008e2ba3d8a55a8884a11466de79c7e0c92e684e0d1978cfd3a1131a98d7ebb3cd5eeac7!@asav-1.01.com>
List-Unsubscribe:  <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-performance>

On 12/05/2014 08:04 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 6 December 2014 at 00:45, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Neat -- got any test cases (would this have prevented OP's problem)?
> 
> No test case was posted, so I am unable to confirm.
> 
> A test case I produced that appears to be the same issue is fixed.
> 
> I await confirmation from the OP.
> 

So that's proprietary/confidential data.  However, the company involved
has a large testbed and I could test their data using a patched version
of Postgres.   In 3 months their data distribution has drifted, so I'll
need to do some work to recreate the original bad plan circumstances.
I'll keep you posted on how the patch works for that setup.

It would be great to come up with a generic/public test for a bad
abort-early situation.  Ideas?

-- 
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com


-- 
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance



view thread (60+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <5487A5FA.8080603@agliodbs.com>
Permalink:  ../5487A5FA.8080603@agliodbs.com/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/5487A5FA.8080603@agliodbs.com

 · 

reply
Reply instructions:

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

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

  To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
  Cc: josh@agliodbs.com, simon@2ndQuadrant.com, mmoncure@gmail.com
  Subject: Re: Yet another abort-early plan disaster on 9.3
  In-Reply-To: <5487A5FA.8080603@agliodbs.com>

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

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