Thread: pgsql: Split out tiebreaker comparisons from comparetup_* functions
Split out tiebreaker comparisons from comparetup_* functions Previously, if a specialized comparator found equal datum1 keys, the "comparetup" function would repeat the comparison on the datum before proceeding with the unabbreviated first key and/or additional sort keys. Move comparing additional sort keys into "tiebreak" functions so that specialized comparators can call these directly if needed, avoiding duplicate work. Reviewed by David Rowley Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAFBsxsGaVfUrjTghpf%3DkDBYY%3DjWx1PN-fuusVe7Vw5s0XqGdGw%40mail.gmail.com Branch ------ master Details ------- https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/c9bfa40914be4a0882b904834c2bd32775a50d7b Modified Files -------------- src/backend/utils/sort/tuplesort.c | 9 +-- src/backend/utils/sort/tuplesortvariants.c | 125 ++++++++++++++++++++++------- src/include/utils/tuplesort.h | 7 ++ 3 files changed, 108 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 5:17 PM John Naylor <john.naylor@postgresql.org> wrote:
>
> Split out tiebreaker comparisons from comparetup_* functions
Hammerkop is getting OOM errors with this change. Most grand totals in the memory context stats show between 1 and 3 MB, and "tuplesort main" only shows small-ish requests, so not sure what's going on.
--
John Naylor
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 11:41 AM John Naylor <john.naylor@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 5:17 PM John Naylor <john.naylor@postgresql.org> wrote:
> >
> > Split out tiebreaker comparisons from comparetup_* functions
>
> Hammerkop is getting OOM errors with this change. Most grand totals in the memory context stats show between 1 and 3 MB, and "tuplesort main" only shows small-ish requests, so not sure what's going on.
That remains the only new failure in the buildfarm, and it just failed in the same way again. I'll try to figure out what could be the cause, but if I don't I'll revert within 24 hours.
--
John Naylor
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 12:48 AM John Naylor <john.naylor@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 11:41 AM John Naylor <john.naylor@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 5:17 PM John Naylor <john.naylor@postgresql.org> wrote: > > > > > > Split out tiebreaker comparisons from comparetup_* functions > > > > Hammerkop is getting OOM errors with this change. Most grand totals in the memory context stats show between 1 and 3MB, and "tuplesort main" only shows small-ish requests, so not sure what's going on. > > That remains the only new failure in the buildfarm, and it just failed in the same way again. I'll try to figure out whatcould be the cause, but if I don't I'll revert within 24 hours. I don't know what's going on on that machine but those two failures seem different, and there are also now some failures in release branches that don't have your commit, so I'd wait long for more evidence...
On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 5:26 PM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Hammerkop is getting OOM errors with this change. Most grand totals in the memory context stats show between 1 and 3 MB, and "tuplesort main" only shows small-ish requests, so not sure what's going on.
> >
> > That remains the only new failure in the buildfarm, and it just failed in the same way again. I'll try to figure out what could be the cause, but if I don't I'll revert within 24 hours.
>
> I don't know what's going on on that machine but those two failures
> seem different, and there are also now some failures in release
> branches that don't have your commit, so I'd wait long for more
> evidence...
Ah, I did check at least one back branch yesterday and didn't see any failures then. I see them now, thanks!
(FWIW, I've been looking for signs of memory malfeasance in the commit, and found nothing yet)
--
John Naylor
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
John Naylor
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
John Naylor <john.naylor@enterprisedb.com> writes: > On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 5:26 PM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote: >> I don't know what's going on on that machine but those two failures >> seem different, and there are also now some failures in release >> branches that don't have your commit, so I'd wait long for more >> evidence... > Ah, I did check at least one back branch yesterday and didn't see any > failures then. I see them now, thanks! ... and hamerkop just went back to green on HEAD. So whatever is up with that machine, it's not the fault of your commit. regards, tom lane