Horton

Re: logical decoding and replication of sequences, take 2

Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>

View thread
From: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>
To: "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com>, 'Amit Kapila' <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Cc: "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>
Date: 2023-11-27T13:54:56Z
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. Migrate logical slots to the new node during an upgrade.

  2. Make test_decoding ddl.out shorter

  3. Fix snapshot handling in logicalmsg_decode

  4. doc: Adjust a few more references to "postmaster"

  5. Revert "Logical decoding of sequences"

On 11/27/23 13:08, Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) wrote:
> Dear Amit, Tomas,
> 
>>>>
>>>> I am wondering that instead of building the infrastructure to know
>>>> whether a particular change is transactional on the decoding side,
>>>> can't we have some flag in the WAL record to note whether the change
>>>> is transactional or not? I have discussed this point with my colleague
>>>> Kuroda-San and we thought that it may be worth exploring whether we
>>>> can use rd_createSubid/rd_newRelfilelocatorSubid in RelationData to
>>>> determine if the sequence is created/changed in the current
>>>> subtransaction and then record that in WAL record. By this, we need to
>>>> have additional information in the WAL record like XLOG_SEQ_LOG but we
>>>> can probably do it only with wal_level as logical.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I may not understand the proposal exactly, but it's not enough to know
>>> if it was created in the same subxact. It might have been created in
>>> some earlier subxact in the same top-level xact.
>>>
>>
>> We should be able to detect even some earlier subxact or top-level
>> xact based on rd_createSubid/rd_newRelfilelocatorSubid.
> 
> Here is a small PoC patchset to help your understanding. Please see attached
> files.
> 
> 0001, 0002 were not changed, and 0004 was reassigned to 0003.
> (For now, I focused only on test_decoding, because it is only for evaluation purpose.)
> 
> 0004 is what we really wanted to say. is_transactional is added in WAL record, and it stores
> whether the operations is transactional. In order to distinguish the status, rd_createSubid and
> rd_newRelfilelocatorSubid are used. According to the comment, they would be a valid value
> only when the relation was changed within the transaction
> Also, sequences_hash was not needed anymore, so it and related functions were removed.
> 
> How do you think?
> 

I think it's an a very nice idea, assuming it maintains the current
behavior. It makes a lot of code unnecessary, etc.


regards

-- 
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company