Re: Perform streaming logical transactions by background workers and parallel apply

Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>

From: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>
To: "houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com" <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>, "wangw.fnst@fujitsu.com" <wangw.fnst@fujitsu.com>, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>, "shiy.fnst@fujitsu.com" <shiy.fnst@fujitsu.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2023-01-04T11:22:37Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 4:25 PM houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com
<houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote:
>

> Attach the new patch set.
> Apart from addressing Sawada-San's comments, I also did some other minor
> changes in the patch:

I have done a high-level review of 0001, and later I will do a
detailed review of this while reading through the patch I think some
of the comments need some changes..

1.
+ The deadlock can happen in
+ * the following ways:
+ *

+ * 4) Lock types
+ *
+ * Both the stream lock and the transaction lock mentioned above are
+ * session-level locks because both locks could be acquired outside the
+ * transaction, and the stream lock in the leader needs to persist across
+ * transaction boundaries i.e. until the end of the streaming transaction.

I think the Lock types should not be listed with the number 4).
Because point number 1,2 and 3 are explaining the way how deadlocks
can happen but 4) doesn't fall under that category.


2.
+ * Since the database structure (schema of subscription tables, constraints,
+ * etc.) of the publisher and subscriber could be different, applying
+ * transactions in parallel mode on the subscriber side can cause some
+ * deadlocks that do not occur on the publisher side.

I think this paragraph needs to be rephrased a bit.  It is saying that
some deadlock can occur on subscribers which did not occur on the
publisher.  I think what it should be conveying is that the deadlock
can occur due to concurrently applying the conflicting/dependent
transactions which are not conflicting/dependent on the publisher due
to <explain reason>.  Because if we create the same schema on the
publisher it might not have ended up in a deadlock instead it would
have been executed in sequence (due to lock waiting). So the main
point we are conveying is that the transaction which was independent
of each other on the publisher could be dependent on the subscriber
and they can end up in deadlock due to parallel apply.


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



Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →
  1. Fix invalid memory access during the shutdown of the parallel apply worker.

  2. Fix assertion failure in apply worker.

  3. Use elog to report unexpected action in handle_streamed_transaction().

  4. Use appropriate wait event when sending data in the apply worker.

  5. Allow the logical_replication_mode to be used on the subscriber.

  6. Rename GUC logical_decoding_mode to logical_replication_mode.

  7. Display the leader apply worker's PID for parallel apply workers.

  8. Improve the code to decide and process the apply action.

  9. Document the newly added wait events added by commit 216a784829.

  10. Perform apply of large transactions by parallel workers.

  11. Wake up a subscription's replication worker processes after DDL.

  12. Add copyright notices to meson files

  13. Better document logical replication parameters

  14. Add a common function to generate the origin name.

  15. Harmonize parameter names in storage and AM code.

  16. Avoid using list_length() to test for empty list.

  17. Improve two comments related to a boolean DefElem's value

  18. Fix partition table's REPLICA IDENTITY checking on the subscriber.

  19. Fix data inconsistency between publisher and subscriber.

  20. Fix cache look-up failures while applying changes in logical replication.