On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 11:04 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 10:24 AM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2019-08-22 10:19:04 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 9:58 AM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > On 2019-08-22 09:51:22 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > > > > We can not know the complete size of the record even by reading the
> > > > > header because we have a payload that is variable part and payload
> > > > > length are stored in the payload header which again can be at random
> > > > > offset.
> > > >
> > > > Wait, but that's just purely self inflicted damage, no? The initial
> > > > length just needs to include the payload. And all this is not an issue
> > > > anymore?
> > > >
> > > Actually, we store the undo length only at the end of the record and
> > > that is for traversing the transaction's undo record chain during bulk
> > > fetch. Ac such in the beginning of the record we don't have the undo
> > > length. We do have uur_info but that just tell us which all optional
> > > header are included in the record.
> >
> > But why? It makes a *lot* more sense to have it in the beginning. I
> > don't think bulk-fetch really requires it to be in the end - we can
> > still process records forward on a page-by-page basis.
>
> Yeah, we can handle the bulk fetch as you suggested and it will make
> it a lot easier. But, currently while registering the undo request
> (especially during the first pass) we need to compute the from_urecptr
> and the to_urecptr. And, for computing the from_urecptr, we have the
> end location of the transaction because we have the uur_next in the
> transaction header and that will tell us the end of our transaction
> but we still don't know the undo record pointer of the last record of
> the transaction. As of know, we read previous 2 bytes from the end of
> the transaction to know the length of the last record and from there
> we can compute the undo record pointer of the last record and that is
> our from_urecptr.
>
How about if we store the location of the last record of the
transaction instead of the location of the next transaction in the
transaction header? I think if we do that then discard worker might
need to do some additional work in some cases as it needs to tell the
location up to which discard is possible, however, many other cases
might get simplified. With this also, when the log is switched while
writing records for the same transaction, the transaction header in
the first log will store the start location of the same transaction's
records in the next log.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com