Horton

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

Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Cc: Erik Rijkers <er@xs4all.nl>, 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: 2020-06-23T04:43:07Z
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, Jun 23, 2020 at 8:18 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 6:38 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 5:26 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > @@ -2012,8 +2014,6 @@ ReorderBufferForget(ReorderBuffer *rb,
> > > > > TransactionId xid, XLogRecPtr lsn)
> > > > >   if (txn->base_snapshot != NULL && txn->ninvalidations > 0)
> > > > >   ReorderBufferImmediateInvalidation(rb, txn->ninvalidations,
> > > > >      txn->invalidations);
> > > > > - else
> > > > > - Assert(txn->ninvalidations == 0);
> > > > >
> > > > > Why this Assert is removed?
> > > >
> > > > Even if the base_snapshot is NULL, now we are collecting the
> > > > txn->invalidation.
> > > >
> > >
> > > But there doesn't seem to be any check even before this patch which
> > > directly prohibits accumulating invalidations in DecodeCommit.  We
> > > have check for base_snapshot in ReorderBufferCommit.  Did you get any
> > > failure with that check?
> >
> > Because earlier ReorderBufferForget for toptxn will be called if the
> > top transaction is aborted and in abort case, we are not logging any
> > invalidation so that will be 0.  However same is not true now.
> >
>
> AFAICS, ReorderBufferForget() is called (via DecodeCommit) only when
> we need to skip the transaction.  It doesn't seem to be called from
> Abort path (DecodeAbort/ReorderBufferAbort doesn't use
> ReorderBufferForget).  I am not sure which code path are you referring
> here, can you please share the code flow which you are referring to
> here.

I think you are right,  during some intermediate code change, it
crashed on that assert (I guess I might be adding invalidation to the
sub-transaction but not sure what was that state) and I assumed that
is the reason that I explained above but, now I see my assumption was
wrong.  I will put back that assert.  By testing, I could not hit any
case where we hit that assert even after my changes, still I will put
more thought if by any chance our case is different then the base
code.

-- 
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com