Re: Decoding speculative insert with toast leaks memory

On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 9:59 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 9:53 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 8:12 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 6:32 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I missed to do the test for streaming.  I will to that tomorrow and reply back.
> > >
> > > For streaming transactions this issue is not there. Because this
> > > problem will only occur if the last change is *SPEC INSERT * and after
> > > that there is no other UPDATE/INSERT change because on that change we
> > > are resetting the toast table.  Now, if the transaction has only *SPEC
> > > INSERT* without SPEC CONFIRM or any other INSERT/UPDATE then we will
> > > not stream it.  And if we get any next INSERT/UPDATE then only we can
> > > select this for stream but in that case toast will be reset.  So as of
> > > today for streaming mode we don't have this problem.
> > >
> >
> > What if the next change is a different SPEC_INSERT
> > (REORDER_BUFFER_CHANGE_INTERNAL_SPEC_INSERT)? I think in that case we
> > will stream but won't free the toast memory.
>
> But if the next change is again the SPEC INSERT then we will keep the
> PARTIAL change flag set and we will not select this transaction for
> stream right?
>

Right, I think you can remove the change related to stream xact and
probably write some comments on why we don't need it for streamed
transactions. But, now I have another question related to fixing the
non-streamed case. What if after the missing spec_confirm we get the
delete operation in the transaction? It seems
ReorderBufferToastReplace always expects Insert/Update if we have
toast hash active in the transaction.

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.