Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of largein-progress transactions

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Dilip Kumar
Тема Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of largein-progress transactions
Дата
Msg-id CAFiTN-sKDPk+B38UAw7O27GmfuECVT65nMZFco9MgeMj=0Vs0w@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of largein-progress transactions  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
Ответы Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of largein-progress transactions  (Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>)
Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of largein-progress transactions  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of largein-progress transactions  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of largein-progress transactions  (Masahiko Sawada <masahiko.sawada@2ndquadrant.com>)
Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of largein-progress transactions  (vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 7:58 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 01:18:11PM +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > I have rebased the patch on the latest head and also fix the issue of
> > "concurrent abort handling of the (sub)transaction." and attached as
> > (v1-0013-Extend-handling-of-concurrent-aborts-for-streamin) along with
> > the complete patch set.  I have added the version number so that we
> > can track the changes.
>
> The patch has rotten a bit and does not apply anymore.  Could you
> please send a rebased version?  I have moved it to next CF, waiting on
> author.

I have rebased the patch set on the latest head.

Apart from this, there is one issue reported by my colleague Vignesh.
The issue is that if we use more than two relations in a transaction
then there is an error on standby (no relation map entry for remote
relation ID 16390).  After analyzing I have found that for the
streaming transaction an "is_schema_sent" flag is kept in
ReorderBufferTXN.  And, I think that is done so that we can send the
schema for each transaction stream so that if any subtransaction gets
aborted we don't lose the logical WAL for that schema.  But, this
solution has induced a very basic issue that if a transaction operate
on more than 1 relation then after sending the schema for the first
relation it will mark the flag true and the schema for the subsequent
relations will never be sent.  I am still working on finding a better
solution for this if anyone has any opinion/solution about this feel
free to suggest.

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

Вложения

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Michael Paquier
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Allow CLUSTER, VACUUM FULL and REINDEX to change tablespace onthe fly
Следующее
От: Dilip Kumar
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum