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: 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: 2020-04-28T10:25:20Z
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, Apr 28, 2020 at 3:11 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 4:05 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> [latest patches]
>
> v16-0004-Gracefully-handle-concurrent-aborts-of-uncommitt
> -     Any actions leading to transaction ID assignment are prohibited.
> That, among others,
> +     Note that access to user catalog tables or regular system catalog tables
> +     in the output plugins has to be done via the
> <literal>systable_*</literal> scan APIs only.
> +     Access via the <literal>heap_*</literal> scan APIs will error out.
> +     Additionally, any actions leading to transaction ID assignment
> are prohibited. That, among others,
> ..
> @@ -1383,6 +1392,14 @@ heap_fetch(Relation relation,
>   bool valid;
>
>   /*
> + * We don't expect direct calls to heap_fetch with valid
> + * CheckXidAlive for regular tables. Track that below.
> + */
> + if (unlikely(TransactionIdIsValid(CheckXidAlive) &&
> + !(IsCatalogRelation(relation) || RelationIsUsedAsCatalogTable(relation))))
> + elog(ERROR, "unexpected heap_fetch call during logical decoding");
> +
>
> I think comments and code don't match.  In the comment, we are saying
> that via output plugins access to user catalog tables or regular
> system catalog tables won't be allowed via heap_* APIs but code
> doesn't seem to reflect it.  I feel only
> TransactionIdIsValid(CheckXidAlive) is sufficient here.  See, the
> original discussion about this point [1] (Refer "I think it'd also be
> good to add assertions to codepaths not going through systable_*
> asserting that ...").

Right,  So I think we can just add an assert in these function that
Assert(!TransactionIdIsValid(CheckXidAlive)) ?

>
> Isn't it better to block the scan to user catalog tables or regular
> system catalog tables for tableam scan APIs rather than at the heap
> level?  There might be some APIs like heap_getnext where such a check
> might still be required but I guess it is still better to block at
> tableam level.
>
> [1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20180726200241.aje4dv4jsv25v4k2%40alap3.anarazel.de

Okay, let me analyze this part.  Because someplace we have to keep at
heap level like heap_getnext and other places at tableam level so it
seems a bit inconsistent.  Also, I think the number of checks might
going to increase because some of the heap functions like
heap_hot_search_buffer are being called from multiple tableam calls,
so we need to put check at every place.

Another point is that I feel some of the checks what we have today
might not be required like heap_finish_speculative, is not fetching
any tuple for us so why do we need to care about this function?

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