Re: [PATCH] Logical decoding of TRUNCATE

On 2018-01-25 14:21:15 +0100, Marco Nenciarini wrote:
> + 	if (SessionReplicationRole != SESSION_REPLICATION_ROLE_REPLICA)
> + 	{
> + 
> + 		/*
> + 		 * Check foreign key references.  In CASCADE mode, this should be
> + 		 * unnecessary since we just pulled in all the references; but as a
> + 		 * cross-check, do it anyway if in an Assert-enabled build.
> + 		 */
>   #ifdef USE_ASSERT_CHECKING
>   		heap_truncate_check_FKs(rels, false);
> + #else
> + 		if (stmt->behavior == DROP_RESTRICT)
> + 			heap_truncate_check_FKs(rels, false);
>   #endif
> + 	}

That *can't* be right.

> + 		case REORDER_BUFFER_CHANGE_TRUNCATE:
> + 			appendStringInfoString(ctx->out, " TRUNCATE:");
> + 
> + 			if (change->data.truncate_msg.restart_seqs
> + 				|| change->data.truncate_msg.cascade)
> + 			{
> + 				if (change->data.truncate_msg.restart_seqs)
> + 					appendStringInfo(ctx->out, " restart_seqs");
> + 				if (change->data.truncate_msg.cascade)
> + 					appendStringInfo(ctx->out, " cascade");
> + 			}
> + 			else
> + 				appendStringInfoString(ctx->out, " (no-flags)");
> + 			break;
>   		default:
>   			Assert(false);
>   	}

I know this has been discussed in the thread already, but it really
strikes me as wrong to basically do some mini DDL replication feature
via per-command WAL records.
> ***************
> *** 111,116 **** CREATE PUBLICATION name
> --- 111,121 ----
>             and so the default value for this option is
>             'insert, update, delete'.
>            
> +          
> +            TRUNCATE is treated as a form of
> +            DELETE for the purpose of deciding whether
> +            to publish, or not.
> +          
>           
>          
>         

Why is this a good idea?


Hm, it seems logicaldecoding.sgml hasn't been updated?

> + void
> + ExecuteTruncateGuts(List *explicit_rels, List *relids, List *relids_logged,
> + 							DropBehavior behavior, bool restart_seqs)
> + {
> + 	List	   *rels = list_copy(explicit_rels);

Why is this copied?


> + 	 * Write a WAL record to allow this set of actions to be logically decoded.
> + 	 * We could optimize this away when !RelationIsLogicallyLogged(rel)
> + 	 * but that doesn't save much space or time.

What you're saying isn't that you're not logging anything, but that
you're allocating the header regardless? Because this certainly sounds
like you unconditionally log a WAL record.

> + 	 * Assemble an array of relids, then an array of seqrelids so we can write
> + 	 * a single WAL record for the whole action.
> + 	 */
> + 	logrelids = palloc(maxrelids * sizeof(Oid));
> + 	foreach (cell, relids_logged)
> + 	{
> + 		nrelids++;
> + 		if (nrelids > maxrelids)
> + 		{
> + 			maxrelids *= 2;
> + 			logrelids = repalloc(logrelids, maxrelids * sizeof(Oid));
> + 		}
> + 		logrelids[nrelids - 1] = lfirst_oid(cell);
> + 	}
> + 
> + 	foreach (cell, seq_relids_logged)
> + 	{
> + 		nseqrelids++;
> + 		if ((nrelids + nseqrelids) > maxrelids)
> + 		{
> + 			maxrelids *= 2;
> + 			logrelids = repalloc(logrelids, maxrelids * sizeof(Oid));
> + 		}
> + 		logrelids[nrelids + nseqrelids - 1] = lfirst_oid(cell);
> + 	}

I'm confused. Why do we need the resizing here, when we know the max
upfront?

> + /*
> +  * For truncate we list all truncated relids in an array, followed by all
> +  * sequence relids that need to be restarted, if any.
> +  * All rels are always within the same database, so we just list dbid once.
> +  */
> + typedef struct xl_heap_truncate
> + {
> + 	Oid			dbId;
> + 	uint32		nrelids;
> + 	uint32		nseqrelids;
> + 	uint8		flags;
> + 	Oid relids[FLEXIBLE_ARRAY_MEMBER];
> + } xl_heap_truncate;

Given that the space is used anyway due to padding, I'd just make flags
32bit.

Greetings,

Andres Freund