Horton

Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions

Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
To: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>
Cc: Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh.2007@gmail.com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2020-05-05T05:31:29Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Tighten the concurrent abort check during decoding.

  2. Improve hash_create()'s API for some added robustness.

  3. Use HASH_BLOBS for xidhash.

  4. Fix initialization of RelationSyncEntry for streaming transactions.

  5. Remove unused function declaration in logicalproto.h.

  6. Add additional tests to test streaming of in-progress transactions.

  7. Fix inline marking introduced in commit 464824323e.

  8. Add support for streaming to built-in logical replication.

  9. Fix the SharedFileSetUnregister API.

  10. Fix comment in procarray.c

  11. Suppress compiler warning in non-cassert builds.

  12. Extend the BufFile interface.

  13. Mark a few logical decoding related variables with PGDLLIMPORT.

  14. Implement streaming mode in ReorderBuffer.

  15. Extend the logical decoding output plugin API with stream methods.

  16. WAL Log invalidations at command end with wal_level=logical.

  17. Immediately WAL-log subtransaction and top-level XID association.

  18. Allow logical replication to transfer data in binary format.

  19. Only superuser can set sslcert/sslkey in postgres_fdw user mappings

  20. Track statistics for spilling of changes from ReorderBuffer.

  21. Add logical_decoding_work_mem to limit ReorderBuffer memory usage.

  22. logical decoding: process ASSIGNMENT during snapshot build

  23. Emit invalidations to standby for transactions without xid.

On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 10:31 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 10:25 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 9:27 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 5:16 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 8:41 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > >
> > > > 5. Shouldn't we add a check in table_scan_sample_next_block and
> > > > table_scan_sample_next_tuple APIs as well?
> > >
> > > I am not sure that we need to do that,  Because generally, we want to
> > > avoid getting any wrong system table tuple which we can use for taking
> > > some decision or decode tuple.  But, I don't think that
> > > table_scan_sample falls under that category.
> > >
> >
> > Hmm, I am asking a check similar to what you have in function
> > table_scan_bitmap_next_block(), can't we have that one?
>
> Yeah we can put that and there is no harm in that,  but my point is
> the table_scan_bitmap_next_block and other functions where I have put
> the check are used for fetching the tuple which can be used for
> decoding tuple or taking some decision, but IMHO,
> table_scan_sample_next_tuple is only used for analyzing the table.
>

These will be used in TABLESAMPLE scan.  Try something like "select c1
from t1 TABLESAMPLE BERNOULLI(30);".  So, I guess these APIs can also
be used to fetch the tuple.

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