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

On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 5:34 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 2:47 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 4:39 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > 4.
> > > +static void
> > > +stream_start_cb_wrapper(ReorderBuffer *cache, ReorderBufferTXN *txn)
> > > +{
> > > + LogicalDecodingContext *ctx = cache->private_data;
> > > + LogicalErrorCallbackState state;
> > > + ErrorContextCallback errcallback;
> > > +
> > > + Assert(!ctx->fast_forward);
> > > +
> > > + /* We're only supposed to call this when streaming is supported. */
> > > + Assert(ctx->streaming);
> > > +
> > > + /* Push callback + info on the error context stack */
> > > + state.ctx = ctx;
> > > + state.callback_name = "stream_start";
> > > + /* state.report_location = apply_lsn; */
> > >
> > > Why can't we supply the report_location here?  I think here we need to
> > > report txn->first_lsn if this is the very first stream and
> > > txn->final_lsn if it is any consecutive one.
> >
> > Done
> >
>
> Now after your change in stream_start_cb_wrapper, we assign
> report_location as first_lsn passed as input to function but
> write_location is still txn->first_lsn.  Shouldn't we assing passed in
> first_lsn to write_location?  It seems assigning txn->first_lsn won't
> be correct for streams other than first-one.

Done

>
> > > 5.
> > > +static void
> > > +stream_stop_cb_wrapper(ReorderBuffer *cache, ReorderBufferTXN *txn)
> > > +{
> > > + LogicalDecodingContext *ctx = cache->private_data;
> > > + LogicalErrorCallbackState state;
> > > + ErrorContextCallback errcallback;
> > > +
> > > + Assert(!ctx->fast_forward);
> > > +
> > > + /* We're only supposed to call this when streaming is supported. */
> > > + Assert(ctx->streaming);
> > > +
> > > + /* Push callback + info on the error context stack */
> > > + state.ctx = ctx;
> > > + state.callback_name = "stream_stop";
> > > + /* state.report_location = apply_lsn; */
> > >
> > > Can't we report txn->final_lsn here
> >
> > We are already setting this to the  txn->final_ls in 0006 patch, but I
> > have moved it into this patch now.
> >
>
> Similar to previous point, here also, I think we need to assign report
> and write location as last_lsn passed to this API.

Done

> >
> > > v20-0005-Implement-streaming-mode-in-ReorderBuffer
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 10.
> > > Theoretically, we could get rid of the k-way merge, and append the
> > > changes to the toplevel xact directly (and remember the position
> > > in the list in case the subxact gets aborted later).
> > >
> > > I don't think this part of the commit message is correct as we
> > > sometimes need to spill even during streaming.  Please check the
> > > entire commit message and update according to the latest
> > > implementation.
> >
> > Done
> >
>
> You seem to forgot about removing the other part of message ("This
> adds a second iterator for the streaming case...." which is not
> relavant now.

Done


> > > 11.
> > > - * HeapTupleSatisfiesHistoricMVCC.
> > > + * tqual.c's HeapTupleSatisfiesHistoricMVCC.
> > > + *
> > > + * We do build the hash table even if there are no CIDs. That's
> > > + * because when streaming in-progress transactions we may run into
> > > + * tuples with the CID before actually decoding them. Think e.g. about
> > > + * INSERT followed by TRUNCATE, where the TRUNCATE may not be decoded
> > > + * yet when applying the INSERT. So we build a hash table so that
> > > + * ResolveCminCmaxDuringDecoding does not segfault in this case.
> > > + *
> > > + * XXX We might limit this behavior to streaming mode, and just bail
> > > + * out when decoding transaction at commit time (at which point it's
> > > + * guaranteed to see all CIDs).
> > >   */
> > >  static void
> > >  ReorderBufferBuildTupleCidHash(ReorderBuffer *rb, ReorderBufferTXN *txn)
> > > @@ -1350,9 +1498,6 @@ ReorderBufferBuildTupleCidHash(ReorderBuffer
> > > *rb, ReorderBufferTXN *txn)
> > >   dlist_iter iter;
> > >   HASHCTL hash_ctl;
> > >
> > > - if (!rbtxn_has_catalog_changes(txn) || dlist_is_empty(&txn->tuplecids))
> > > - return;
> > > -
> > >
> > > I don't understand this change.  Why would "INSERT followed by
> > > TRUNCATE" could lead to a tuple which can come for decode before its
> > > CID?  The patch has made changes based on this assumption in
> > > HeapTupleSatisfiesHistoricMVCC which appears to be very risky as the
> > > behavior could be dependent on whether we are streaming the changes
> > > for in-progress xact or at the commit of a transaction.  We might want
> > > to generate a test to once validate this behavior.
> > >
> > > Also, the comment refers to tqual.c which is wrong as this API is now
> > > in heapam_visibility.c.
> >
> > Done.
> >
>
> + * INSERT.  So in such cases we assume the CIDs is from the future command
> + * and return as unresolve.
> + */
> + if (tuplecid_data == NULL)
> + return false;
> +
>
> Here lets reword the last line of comment as ".  So in such cases we
> assume the CID is from the future command."

Done


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