Re: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side

On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 11:25 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Apr 17, 2022 at 11:22 PM Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote:
> > > Yes, but it could be false positives in some cases. For instance, the
> > > column {oid, bool, XLogRecPtr} should be okay on ALIGNOF_DOUBLE == 4
> > > and 8 platforms but the new test fails.
> >
> > I'm happy with that, because the affected author should look for padding-free
> > layouts before settling on your example layout.  If the padding-free layouts
> > are all unacceptable, the author should update the expected sanity_check.out
> > to show the one row where the test "fails".
>
> I realize that it was necessary to get something committed quickly
> here to unbreak the buildfarm, but this is really a mess. As I
> understand it, the problem here is that typalign='d' is either 4 bytes
> or 8 depending on how the 'double' type is aligned on that platform,
> but we use that typalign value also for some other data types that may
> not be aligned in the same way as 'double'. Consequently, it's
> possible to have a situation where the behavior of the C compiler
> diverges from the behavior of heap_form_tuple(). To avoid that, we
> need every catalog column that uses typalign=='d' to begin on an
> 8-byte boundary. We also want all such columns to occur before the
> first NameData column in the catalog, to guard against the possibility
> that NAMEDATALEN has been redefined to an odd value. I think this set
> of constraints is a nuisance and that it's mostly good luck we haven't
> run into any really awkward problems here so far.
>
> In many of our catalogs, the first member is an OID and the second
> member of the struct is of type NameData: pg_namespace, pg_class,
> pg_proc, etc. That common design pattern is in direct contradiction to
> the desires of this test case. As soon as someone wants to add a
> typalign='d' member to any of those system catalogs, the struct layout
> is going to have to get shuffled around -- and then it will look
> different from all the other ones. Or else we'd have to rearrange them
> all to move all the NameData columns to the end. I feel like it's
> weird to introduce a test case that so obviously flies in the face of
> how catalog layout has been done up to this point, especially for the
> sake of a hypothetical user who want to set NAMEDATALEN to an odd
> number. I doubt such scenarios have been thoroughly tested, or ever
> will be. Perhaps instead we ought to legislate that NAMEDATALEN must
> be a multiple of 8, or some such thing.
>
> The other constraint, that typalign='d' fields must always fall on an
> 8 byte boundary, is probably less annoying in practice, but it's easy
> to imagine a future catalog running into trouble. Let's say we want to
> introduce a new catalog that has only an Oid column and a float8
> column. Perhaps with 0-3 bool or uint8 columns as well, or with any
> number of NameData columns as well. Well, the only way to satisfy this
> constraint is to put the float8 column first and the Oid column after
> it, which immediately makes it look different from every other catalog
> we have. It's hard to feel like that would be a good solution here. I
> think we ought to try to engineer a solution where heap_form_tuple()
> is going to do the same thing as the C compiler without the sorts of
> extra rules that this test case enforces.

These seem to be valid concerns.

> AFAICS, we could do that by:
>
> 1. De-supporting platforms that have this problem, or
> 2. Introducing new typalign values, as Noah proposed back on April 2, or
> 3. Somehow forcing values that are sometimes 4-byte aligned and
> sometimes 8-byte aligned to be 8-byte alignment on all platforms

Introducing new typalign values seems a good idea to me as it's more
future-proof. Will this item be for PG16, right? The main concern
seems that what this test case enforces would be nuisance when
introducing a new system catalog or a new column to the existing
catalog but given we're in post PG15-beta1 it is unlikely to happen in
PG15.


Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
EDB:  https://www.enterprisedb.com/