docs(readmes): move READMEs to the new readmes dir #2
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
README fiels changed:
my-ship-it
approved these changes
Jun 16, 2023
yjhjstz
pushed a commit
to yjhjstz/cloudberry
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 20, 2024
We've heard a couple of reports of people having trouble with multi-gigabyte-sized query-texts files. It occurred to me that on 32-bit platforms, there could be an issue with integer overflow of calculations associated with the total query text size. Address that with several changes: 1. Limit pg_stat_statements.max to INT_MAX / 2 not INT_MAX. The hashtable code will bound it to that anyway unless "long" is 64 bits. We still need overflow guards on its use, but this helps. 2. Add a check to prevent extending the query-texts file to more than MaxAllocHugeSize. If it got that big, qtext_load_file would certainly fail, so there's not much point in allowing it. Without this, we'd need to consider whether extent, query_offset, and related variables shouldn't be off_t not size_t. 3. Adjust the comparisons in need_gc_qtexts() to be done in 64-bit arithmetic on all platforms. It appears possible that under duress those multiplications could overflow 32 bits, yielding a false conclusion that we need to garbage-collect the texts file, which could lead to repeatedly garbage-collecting after every hash table insertion. Per report from Bruno da Silva. I'm not convinced that these issues fully explain his problem; there may be some other bug that's contributing to the query-texts file becoming so large in the first place. But it did get that big, so apache#2 is a reasonable defense, and apache#3 could explain the reported performance difficulties. (See also commit 8bbe4cb, which addressed some related bugs. The second Discussion: link is the thread that led up to that.) This issue is old, and is primarily a problem for old platforms, so back-patch. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAB+Nuk93fL1Q9eLOCotvLP07g7RAv4vbdrkm0cVQohDVMpAb9A@mail.gmail.com Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/[email protected]
yjhjstz
pushed a commit
to yjhjstz/cloudberry
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 22, 2024
We've heard a couple of reports of people having trouble with multi-gigabyte-sized query-texts files. It occurred to me that on 32-bit platforms, there could be an issue with integer overflow of calculations associated with the total query text size. Address that with several changes: 1. Limit pg_stat_statements.max to INT_MAX / 2 not INT_MAX. The hashtable code will bound it to that anyway unless "long" is 64 bits. We still need overflow guards on its use, but this helps. 2. Add a check to prevent extending the query-texts file to more than MaxAllocHugeSize. If it got that big, qtext_load_file would certainly fail, so there's not much point in allowing it. Without this, we'd need to consider whether extent, query_offset, and related variables shouldn't be off_t not size_t. 3. Adjust the comparisons in need_gc_qtexts() to be done in 64-bit arithmetic on all platforms. It appears possible that under duress those multiplications could overflow 32 bits, yielding a false conclusion that we need to garbage-collect the texts file, which could lead to repeatedly garbage-collecting after every hash table insertion. Per report from Bruno da Silva. I'm not convinced that these issues fully explain his problem; there may be some other bug that's contributing to the query-texts file becoming so large in the first place. But it did get that big, so apache#2 is a reasonable defense, and apache#3 could explain the reported performance difficulties. (See also commit 8bbe4cb, which addressed some related bugs. The second Discussion: link is the thread that led up to that.) This issue is old, and is primarily a problem for old platforms, so back-patch. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAB+Nuk93fL1Q9eLOCotvLP07g7RAv4vbdrkm0cVQohDVMpAb9A@mail.gmail.com Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/[email protected]
yjhjstz
pushed a commit
to yjhjstz/cloudberry
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 24, 2024
We've heard a couple of reports of people having trouble with multi-gigabyte-sized query-texts files. It occurred to me that on 32-bit platforms, there could be an issue with integer overflow of calculations associated with the total query text size. Address that with several changes: 1. Limit pg_stat_statements.max to INT_MAX / 2 not INT_MAX. The hashtable code will bound it to that anyway unless "long" is 64 bits. We still need overflow guards on its use, but this helps. 2. Add a check to prevent extending the query-texts file to more than MaxAllocHugeSize. If it got that big, qtext_load_file would certainly fail, so there's not much point in allowing it. Without this, we'd need to consider whether extent, query_offset, and related variables shouldn't be off_t not size_t. 3. Adjust the comparisons in need_gc_qtexts() to be done in 64-bit arithmetic on all platforms. It appears possible that under duress those multiplications could overflow 32 bits, yielding a false conclusion that we need to garbage-collect the texts file, which could lead to repeatedly garbage-collecting after every hash table insertion. Per report from Bruno da Silva. I'm not convinced that these issues fully explain his problem; there may be some other bug that's contributing to the query-texts file becoming so large in the first place. But it did get that big, so apache#2 is a reasonable defense, and apache#3 could explain the reported performance difficulties. (See also commit 8bbe4cb, which addressed some related bugs. The second Discussion: link is the thread that led up to that.) This issue is old, and is primarily a problem for old platforms, so back-patch. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAB+Nuk93fL1Q9eLOCotvLP07g7RAv4vbdrkm0cVQohDVMpAb9A@mail.gmail.com Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/[email protected]
my-ship-it
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 24, 2024
We've heard a couple of reports of people having trouble with multi-gigabyte-sized query-texts files. It occurred to me that on 32-bit platforms, there could be an issue with integer overflow of calculations associated with the total query text size. Address that with several changes: 1. Limit pg_stat_statements.max to INT_MAX / 2 not INT_MAX. The hashtable code will bound it to that anyway unless "long" is 64 bits. We still need overflow guards on its use, but this helps. 2. Add a check to prevent extending the query-texts file to more than MaxAllocHugeSize. If it got that big, qtext_load_file would certainly fail, so there's not much point in allowing it. Without this, we'd need to consider whether extent, query_offset, and related variables shouldn't be off_t not size_t. 3. Adjust the comparisons in need_gc_qtexts() to be done in 64-bit arithmetic on all platforms. It appears possible that under duress those multiplications could overflow 32 bits, yielding a false conclusion that we need to garbage-collect the texts file, which could lead to repeatedly garbage-collecting after every hash table insertion. Per report from Bruno da Silva. I'm not convinced that these issues fully explain his problem; there may be some other bug that's contributing to the query-texts file becoming so large in the first place. But it did get that big, so #2 is a reasonable defense, and #3 could explain the reported performance difficulties. (See also commit 8bbe4cb, which addressed some related bugs. The second Discussion: link is the thread that led up to that.) This issue is old, and is primarily a problem for old platforms, so back-patch. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAB+Nuk93fL1Q9eLOCotvLP07g7RAv4vbdrkm0cVQohDVMpAb9A@mail.gmail.com Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/[email protected]
yjhjstz
pushed a commit
to yjhjstz/cloudberry
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 24, 2024
We've heard a couple of reports of people having trouble with multi-gigabyte-sized query-texts files. It occurred to me that on 32-bit platforms, there could be an issue with integer overflow of calculations associated with the total query text size. Address that with several changes: 1. Limit pg_stat_statements.max to INT_MAX / 2 not INT_MAX. The hashtable code will bound it to that anyway unless "long" is 64 bits. We still need overflow guards on its use, but this helps. 2. Add a check to prevent extending the query-texts file to more than MaxAllocHugeSize. If it got that big, qtext_load_file would certainly fail, so there's not much point in allowing it. Without this, we'd need to consider whether extent, query_offset, and related variables shouldn't be off_t not size_t. 3. Adjust the comparisons in need_gc_qtexts() to be done in 64-bit arithmetic on all platforms. It appears possible that under duress those multiplications could overflow 32 bits, yielding a false conclusion that we need to garbage-collect the texts file, which could lead to repeatedly garbage-collecting after every hash table insertion. Per report from Bruno da Silva. I'm not convinced that these issues fully explain his problem; there may be some other bug that's contributing to the query-texts file becoming so large in the first place. But it did get that big, so apache#2 is a reasonable defense, and apache#3 could explain the reported performance difficulties. (See also commit 8bbe4cb, which addressed some related bugs. The second Discussion: link is the thread that led up to that.) This issue is old, and is primarily a problem for old platforms, so back-patch. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAB+Nuk93fL1Q9eLOCotvLP07g7RAv4vbdrkm0cVQohDVMpAb9A@mail.gmail.com Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/[email protected]
yjhjstz
pushed a commit
to yjhjstz/cloudberry
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 24, 2024
We've heard a couple of reports of people having trouble with multi-gigabyte-sized query-texts files. It occurred to me that on 32-bit platforms, there could be an issue with integer overflow of calculations associated with the total query text size. Address that with several changes: 1. Limit pg_stat_statements.max to INT_MAX / 2 not INT_MAX. The hashtable code will bound it to that anyway unless "long" is 64 bits. We still need overflow guards on its use, but this helps. 2. Add a check to prevent extending the query-texts file to more than MaxAllocHugeSize. If it got that big, qtext_load_file would certainly fail, so there's not much point in allowing it. Without this, we'd need to consider whether extent, query_offset, and related variables shouldn't be off_t not size_t. 3. Adjust the comparisons in need_gc_qtexts() to be done in 64-bit arithmetic on all platforms. It appears possible that under duress those multiplications could overflow 32 bits, yielding a false conclusion that we need to garbage-collect the texts file, which could lead to repeatedly garbage-collecting after every hash table insertion. Per report from Bruno da Silva. I'm not convinced that these issues fully explain his problem; there may be some other bug that's contributing to the query-texts file becoming so large in the first place. But it did get that big, so apache#2 is a reasonable defense, and apache#3 could explain the reported performance difficulties. (See also commit 8bbe4cb, which addressed some related bugs. The second Discussion: link is the thread that led up to that.) This issue is old, and is primarily a problem for old platforms, so back-patch. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAB+Nuk93fL1Q9eLOCotvLP07g7RAv4vbdrkm0cVQohDVMpAb9A@mail.gmail.com Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/[email protected]
yjhjstz
pushed a commit
to yjhjstz/cloudberry
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 2, 2025
We used to rename index-backed constraints in the EXCHANGE PARTITION command in 6X. Now we don't. We've decided to keep that behavior in 7X after looking into the opposing arguments: Argument apache#1. It might cause problem during upgrade. - Firstly, we won't be using legacy syntax in the dump scripts so we just need to worry about the existing tables produced by EXCHANGE PARTITION. I.e. whether or not they can be restored correctly. - For upgrading from 6X->7X, since those tables already have matched constraint and index names with the table names, we should be OK. - For upgrading 7X->onward, since we implement EXCHANGE PARTIITON simply as a combination of upstream-syntax commands (see AtExecGPExchangePartition()), pg_upgrade should be able to handle them. We've verified that manually and the automated test should cover that too. In fact, this gives another point that we shouldn't do our own hacky things as part of EXCHANGE PARTITION which might confuse pg_upgrade. Argument apache#2. It might surprise the users and their existing workloads. - The indexed constraint names are all implicitly generated and shouldn't be directly used in most cases. - They are not the only thing that will appear changed. E.g. the normal indexes (e.g. B-tree ones) will be too. So the decision to change one should be made with changing all of them. More details see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1enJdKYxkk5WFRV1WoqIgLgRxCGxOqI2nglJVE_Wglec
yjhjstz
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 2, 2025
We used to rename index-backed constraints in the EXCHANGE PARTITION command in 6X. Now we don't. We've decided to keep that behavior in 7X after looking into the opposing arguments: Argument #1. It might cause problem during upgrade. - Firstly, we won't be using legacy syntax in the dump scripts so we just need to worry about the existing tables produced by EXCHANGE PARTITION. I.e. whether or not they can be restored correctly. - For upgrading from 6X->7X, since those tables already have matched constraint and index names with the table names, we should be OK. - For upgrading 7X->onward, since we implement EXCHANGE PARTIITON simply as a combination of upstream-syntax commands (see AtExecGPExchangePartition()), pg_upgrade should be able to handle them. We've verified that manually and the automated test should cover that too. In fact, this gives another point that we shouldn't do our own hacky things as part of EXCHANGE PARTITION which might confuse pg_upgrade. Argument #2. It might surprise the users and their existing workloads. - The indexed constraint names are all implicitly generated and shouldn't be directly used in most cases. - They are not the only thing that will appear changed. E.g. the normal indexes (e.g. B-tree ones) will be too. So the decision to change one should be made with changing all of them. More details see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1enJdKYxkk5WFRV1WoqIgLgRxCGxOqI2nglJVE_Wglec
avamingli
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 23, 2025
## Problem
An error occurs in python lib when a plpython function is executed.
After our analysis, in the user's cluster, a plpython UDF
was running with the unstable network, and got a timeout error:
`failed to acquire resources on one or more segments`.
Then a plpython UDF was run in the same session, and the UDF
failed with GC error.
Here is the core dump:
```
2023-11-24 10:15:18.945507 CST,,,p2705198,th2081832064,,,,0,,,seg-1,,,,,"LOG","00000","3rd party error log:
#0 0x7f7c68b6d55b in frame_dealloc /home/cc/repo/cpython/Objects/frameobject.c:509:5
#1 0x7f7c68b5109d in gen_send_ex /home/cc/repo/cpython/Objects/genobject.c:108:9
#2 0x7f7c68af9ddd in PyIter_Next /home/cc/repo/cpython/Objects/abstract.c:3118:14
#3 0x7f7c78caa5c0 in PLy_exec_function /home/cc/repo/gpdb6/src/pl/plpython/plpy_exec.c:134:11
#4 0x7f7c78cb5ffb in plpython_call_handler /home/cc/repo/gpdb6/src/pl/plpython/plpy_main.c:387:13
#5 0x562f5e008bb5 in ExecMakeTableFunctionResult /home/cc/repo/gpdb6/src/backend/executor/execQual.c:2395:13
#6 0x562f5e0dddec in FunctionNext_guts /home/cc/repo/gpdb6/src/backend/executor/nodeFunctionscan.c:142:5
#7 0x562f5e0da094 in FunctionNext /home/cc/repo/gpdb6/src/backend/executor/nodeFunctionscan.c:350:11
#8 0x562f5e03d4b0 in ExecScanFetch /home/cc/repo/gpdb6/src/backend/executor/execScan.c:84:9
#9 0x562f5e03cd8f in ExecScan /home/cc/repo/gpdb6/src/backend/executor/execScan.c:154:10
#10 0x562f5e0da072 in ExecFunctionScan /home/cc/repo/gpdb6/src/backend/executor/nodeFunctionscan.c:380:9
#11 0x562f5e001a1c in ExecProcNode /home/cc/repo/gpdb6/src/backend/executor/execProcnode.c:1071:13
#12 0x562f5dfe6377 in ExecutePlan /home/cc/repo/gpdb6/src/backend/executor/execMain.c:3202:10
#13 0x562f5dfe5bf4 in standard_ExecutorRun /home/cc/repo/gpdb6/src/backend/executor/execMain.c:1171:5
#14 0x562f5dfe4877 in ExecutorRun /home/cc/repo/gpdb6/src/backend/executor/execMain.c:992:4
#15 0x562f5e857e69 in PortalRunSelect /home/cc/repo/gpdb6/src/backend/tcop/pquery.c:1164:4
#16 0x562f5e856d3f in PortalRun /home/cc/repo/gpdb6/src/backend/tcop/pquery.c:1005:18
#17 0x562f5e84607a in exec_simple_query /home/cc/repo/gpdb6/src/backend/tcop/postgres.c:1848:10
```
## Reproduce
We can use a simple procedure to reproduce the above problem:
- set timeout GUC: `gpconfig -c gp_segment_connect_timeout -v 5` and `gpstop -ari`
- prepare function:
```
CREATE EXTENSION plpythonu;
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION test_func() RETURNS SETOF int AS
$$
plpy.execute("select pg_backend_pid()")
for i in range(0, 5):
yield (i)
$$ LANGUAGE plpythonu;
```
- exit from the current psql session.
- stop the postmaster of segment: `gdb -p "the pid of segment postmaster"`
- enter a psql session.
- call `SELECT test_func();` and get error
```
gpadmin=# select test_func();
ERROR: function "test_func" error fetching next item from iterator (plpy_elog.c:121)
DETAIL: Exception: failed to acquire resources on one or more segments
CONTEXT: Traceback (most recent call last):
PL/Python function "test_func"
```
- quit gdb and make postmaster runnable.
- call `SELECT test_func();` again and get panic
```
gpadmin=# SELECT test_func();
server closed the connection unexpectedly
This probably means the server terminated abnormally
before or while processing the request.
The connection to the server was lost. Attempting reset: Failed.
!>
```
## Analysis
- There is an SPI call in test_func(): `plpy.execute()`.
- Then coordinator will start a subtransaction by PLy_spi_subtransaction_begin();
- Meanwhile, if the segment cannot receive the instruction from the coordinator,
the subtransaction beginning procedure return fails.
- BUT! The Python processor does not know whether an error happened and
does not clean its environment.
- Then the next plpython UDF in the same session will fail due to the wrong
Python environment.
## Solution
- Use try-catch to catch the exception caused by PLy_spi_subtransaction_begin()
- set the python error indicator by PLy_spi_exception_set()
Co-authored-by: Chen Mulong <[email protected]>
12 tasks
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
README fiels changed:
Here are some reminders before you submit the pull request
make installcheck