Re: Transaction commits VS Transaction commits (with parallel) VS query mean time

On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 7:54 AM Jamison, Kirk <k(dot)jamison(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Monday, April 8, 2019 9:04 AM (GMT+9), Haribabu Kommi wrote:
>
> >On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 3:29 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > The patch looks good to me. I have changed the commit message and ran
> > the pgindent in the attached patch. Can you once see if that looks
> > fine to you? Also, we should backpatch this till 9.6. So, can you
> > once verify if the change is fine in all bank branches? Also, test
> > with a force_parallel_mode option. I have already tested it with
> > force_parallel_mode = 'regress' in HEAD, please test it in back
> > branches as well.
> >
> > Thanks for the updated patch.
> > I tested in back branches even with force_parallelmode and it is working
> > as expected. But the patches apply is failing in back branches, so attached
> > the patches for their branches. For v11 it applies with hunks.
>
> There are 3 patches for this thread:
> _v5: for PG v11 to current head
> _10: for PG10 branch
> _96: for PG9.6
>
> I have also tried applying these latest patches, .
> The patch set works correctly from patch application, build to compilation.
> I also tested with force_parallel_mode, and it works as intended.
>
> So I am marking this thread as “Ready for Committer”.
>

Thanks, Hari and Jamison for verification. The patches for
back-branches looks good to me. I will once again verify them before
commit. I will commit this patch tomorrow unless someone has
objections. Robert/Alvaro, do let me know if you see any problem with
this fix?

> I hope this makes it on v12 before the feature freeze.
>

Yes, I think fixing bugs should be fine unless we delay too much.

I see one typo in the commit message (transactions as we that is what
we do in ../transactions as that is what we do in ..), will fix it
before commit.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com