Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions
Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>
Commits
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
Tighten the concurrent abort check during decoding.
- 2ce353fc1902 14.0 landed
-
Improve hash_create()'s API for some added robustness.
- b3817f5f7746 14.0 landed
-
Use HASH_BLOBS for xidhash.
- a1b8aa1e4eec 14.0 landed
-
Fix initialization of RelationSyncEntry for streaming transactions.
- 69bd60672af6 14.0 landed
-
Remove unused function declaration in logicalproto.h.
- ddd5f6d2609b 14.0 landed
-
Add additional tests to test streaming of in-progress transactions.
- 58b5ae9d62bd 14.0 landed
-
Fix inline marking introduced in commit 464824323e.
- ac15b499f7f9 14.0 landed
-
Add support for streaming to built-in logical replication.
- 464824323e57 14.0 landed
-
Fix the SharedFileSetUnregister API.
- 4ab77697f67a 14.0 landed
-
Fix comment in procarray.c
- 77c7267c37f7 14.0 cited
-
Suppress compiler warning in non-cassert builds.
- e942af7b8261 14.0 cited
-
Extend the BufFile interface.
- 808e13b282ef 14.0 landed
-
Mark a few logical decoding related variables with PGDLLIMPORT.
- b48cac3b10a0 14.0 landed
-
Implement streaming mode in ReorderBuffer.
- 7259736a6e5b 14.0 landed
-
Extend the logical decoding output plugin API with stream methods.
- 45fdc9738b36 14.0 landed
-
WAL Log invalidations at command end with wal_level=logical.
- c55040ccd017 14.0 landed
-
Immediately WAL-log subtransaction and top-level XID association.
- 0bead9af484c 14.0 landed
-
Allow logical replication to transfer data in binary format.
- 9de77b545313 14.0 cited
-
Only superuser can set sslcert/sslkey in postgres_fdw user mappings
- cebf9d6e6ee1 13.0 cited
-
Track statistics for spilling of changes from ReorderBuffer.
- 9290ad198b15 13.0 landed
-
Add logical_decoding_work_mem to limit ReorderBuffer memory usage.
- cec2edfa7859 13.0 landed
-
logical decoding: process ASSIGNMENT during snapshot build
- bac2fae05c77 13.0 cited
-
Emit invalidations to standby for transactions without xid.
- c6ff84b06a68 9.6.0 cited
On Wed, Mar 04, 2020 at 10:28:32AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: >On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 3:16 AM Tomas Vondra ><tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I started looking at this patch series again, hoping to get it moving >> for PG13. >> > >It is good to keep moving this forward, but there are quite a few >problems with the design which need a broader discussion. Some of >what I recall are: >a. Handling of abort of concurrent transactions. There is some code >in the patch which might work, but there is not much discussion when >it was posted. >b. Handling of partial tuples (while streaming, we came to know that >toast tuple is not complete or speculative insert is incomplete). For >this also, we have proposed a few solutions which need further >discussion. One of those is implemented in the patch series. >c. We might also need some handling for replication origins. >d. Try to minimize the performance overhead of WAL logging for >invalidations. We discussed different solutions for this and >implemented one of those. >e. How to skip already streamed transactions. > >There might be a few more which I can't recall now. Apart from this, >I haven't done any detailed review of subscriber-side implementation >where we write streamed transactions to file. All of this will need >much more discussion and review before we can say it is ready to >commit, so I thought it might be better to pick it up for PG14 and >focus on other things that have a better chance for PG13 especially >because all the problems were not solved/discussed before last CF. >However, it is a good idea to keep moving this and have a discussion >on some of these issues. > Sure, there's a lot to discuss. And it's possible (likely) it's not feasible to get this into PG13. But I think it's still worth discussing it, instead of just punting it into the next CF right away. >> There's been a tremendous amount of work done since I last >> worked on it, and a lot was discussed on this thread, so it'll take a >> while to get familiar with the new code ... >> >> The first thing I realized that WAL-logging of assignments in v12 does >> both the "old" logging (using dedicated message) and "new" with >> toplevel-XID embedded in the first message. Yes, the patch was wrong, >> because it eliminated all calls to ProcArrayApplyXidAssignment() and so >> it was trivial to crash the replica due to KnownAssignedXids overflow. >> But I don't think re-introducing XLOG_XACT_ASSIGNMENT message is the >> right fix. >> >> I actually proposed doing this (having both ways to log assignments) so >> that there's no regression risk with (wal_level < logical). But IIRC >> Andres objected to it, argumenting that we should not log the same piece >> of information in two very different ways at the same time (IIRC it was >> discussed on the FOSDEM dev meeting, so I don't have a link to share). >> And I do agree with him ... >> > >So, aren't we worried about the overhead of the amount of WAL and >performance impact for the transactions? We might want to check the >pgbench read-write test to see if that will add any significant >overhead. > Well, sure. I agree we need to see how this affects performance, and I'll do some benchmarks (I think I did that when submitting the patch, but I don't recall the numbers / details). Isn't it a bit strange to log stuff twice, though, if we worry about performance? Surely that's more expensive than logging it just once. Of course, it might be useful if most systems need just the "old" way. I know it's going to be a bit hand-wavy, but I think embedding the assignments into existing WAL messages is about the cheapest way to log this. I would not expect this to be mesurably more expensive than what we have now, but I might be wrong. >> The question is, why couldn't the replica use the same assignment info >> we already write for logical decoding? >> > >I haven't thought about it in detail, but we can think on those lines >if the performance overhead is in the acceptable range. > OK, let me do some measurements ... regards -- Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services