Re: WAL logging problem in 9.4.3?

Thank you for your notification.

At Tue, 5 Sep 2017 12:05:01 +0200, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> wrote in <B3EC34FC-A48E-41AA-8598-BFC5D87CB383(at)yesql(dot)se>
> > On 13 Apr 2017, at 11:42, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> >
> > At Thu, 13 Apr 2017 13:52:40 +0900, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote in <CAB7nPqTRyica1d-zU+YckveFC876=Sc847etmk7TRgAS2pA9CA(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com>
> >> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 5:38 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> >> <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> >>> Sorry, what I have just sent was broken.
> >>
> >> You can use PROVE_TESTS when running make check to select a subset of
> >> tests you want to run. I use that all the time when working on patches
> >> dedicated to certain code paths.
> >
> > Thank you for the information. Removing unwanted test scripts
> > from t/ directories was annoyance. This makes me happy.
> >
> >>>> - Relation has new members no_pending_sync and pending_sync that
> >>>> works as instant cache of an entry in pendingSync hash.
> >>>> - Commit-time synchronizing is restored as Michael's patch.
> >>>> - If relfilenode is replaced, pending_sync for the old node is
> >>>> removed. Anyway this is ignored on abort and meaningless on
> >>>> commit.
> >>>> - TAP test is renamed to 012 since some new files have been added.
> >>>>
> >>>> Accessing pending sync hash occurred on every calling of
> >>>> HeapNeedsWAL() (per insertion/update/freeze of a tuple) if any of
> >>>> accessing relations has pending sync. Almost of them are
> >>>> eliminated as the result.
> >>
> >> Did you actually test this patch? One of the logs added makes the
> >> tests a long time to run:
> >
> > Maybe this patch requires make clean since it extends the
> > structure RelationData. (Perhaps I saw the same trouble.)
> >
> >> 2017-04-13 12:11:27.065 JST [85441] t/102_vacuumdb_stages.pl
> >> STATEMENT: ANALYZE;
> >> 2017-04-13 12:12:25.766 JST [85492] LOG: BufferNeedsWAL: pendingSyncs
> >> = 0x0, no_pending_sync = 0
> >>
> >> - lsn = XLogInsert(RM_SMGR_ID,
> >> - XLOG_SMGR_TRUNCATE | XLR_SPECIAL_REL_UPDATE);
> >> + rel->no_pending_sync= false;
> >> + rel->pending_sync = pending;
> >> + }
> >>
> >> It seems to me that those flags and the pending_sync data should be
> >> kept in the context of backend process and not be part of the Relation
> >> data...
> >
> > I understand that the context of "backend process" means
> > storage.c local. I don't mind the context on which the data is,
> > but I found only there that can get rid of frequent hash
> > searching. For pending deletions, just appending to a list is
> > enough and costs almost nothing, on the other hand pendig syncs
> > are required to be referenced, sometimes very frequently.
> >
> >> +void
> >> +RecordPendingSync(Relation rel)
> >> I don't think that I agree that this should be part of relcache.c. The
> >> syncs are tracked should be tracked out of the relation context.
> >
> > Yeah.. It's in storage.c in the latest patch. (Sorry for the
> > duplicate name). I think it is a kind of bond between smgr and
> > relation.
> >
> >> Seeing how invasive this change is, I would also advocate for this
> >> patch as only being a HEAD-only change, not many people are
> >> complaining about this optimization of TRUNCATE missing when wal_level
> >> = minimal, and this needs a very careful review.
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> >> Should I code something? Or Horiguchi-san, would you take care of it?
> >> The previous crash I saw has been taken care of, but it's been really
> >> some time since I looked at this patch...
> >
> > My point is hash-search on every tuple insertion should be evaded
> > even if it happens rearely. Once it was a bit apart from your
> > original patch, but in the latest patch the significant part
> > (pending-sync hash) is revived from the original one.
>
> This patch has followed along since CF 2016-03, do we think we can reach a
> conclusion in this CF? It was marked as "Waiting on Author”, based on
> developments since in this thread, I’ve changed it back to “Needs Review”
> again.

I manged to reload its context into my head. It doesn't apply on
the current master and needs some amendment. I'm going to work on
this.

regards,

--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center