| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> | 
| Cc: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> | 
| Subject: | Re: POC: Cleaning up orphaned files using undo logs | 
| Date: | 2019-05-21 17:17:53 | 
| Message-ID: | 20190521171753.x2aztx5bt6s5i53h@alap3.anarazel.de | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
Hi,
On 2019-05-05 10:28:21 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> From 5d9e179bd481b5ed574b6e7117bf3eb62b5dc003 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
> Date: Sat, 4 May 2019 16:52:01 +0530
> Subject: [PATCH] Allow undo actions to be applied on rollbacks and discard
>  unwanted undo.
I think this needs to be split into some constituent parts, to be
reviewable. Discussing 270kb of patch at once is just too much. My first
guess for a viable split would be:
1) undoaction related infrastructure
2) xact.c integration et al
3) binaryheap changes etc
4) undo worker infrastructure
It probably should be split even further, by moving things like:
- oldestXidHavingUndo infrastructure
- discard infrastructure
Some small remarks:
>  
> +	{
> +		{"disable_undo_launcher", PGC_POSTMASTER, DEVELOPER_OPTIONS,
> +			gettext_noop("Decides whether to launch an undo worker."),
> +			NULL,
> +			GUC_NOT_IN_SAMPLE
> +		},
> +		&disable_undo_launcher,
> +		false,
> +		NULL, NULL, NULL
> +	},
> +
We don't normally formulate GUCs in the negative like that. C.F.
autovacuum etc.
> +/* Extract xid from a value comprised of epoch and xid  */
> +#define GetXidFromEpochXid(epochxid)			\
> +	((uint32) (epochxid) & 0XFFFFFFFF)
> +
> +/* Extract epoch from a value comprised of epoch and xid  */
> +#define GetEpochFromEpochXid(epochxid)			\
> +	((uint32) ((epochxid) >> 32))
> +
Why do these exist? This should all go through FullTransactionId.
>  	/* End-of-list marker */
>  	{
>  		{NULL, 0, 0, NULL, NULL}, NULL, false, NULL, NULL, NULL
> @@ -2923,6 +2935,16 @@ static struct config_int ConfigureNamesInt[] =
>  		5000, 1, INT_MAX,
>  		NULL, NULL, NULL
>  	},
> +	{
> +		{"rollback_overflow_size", PGC_USERSET, RESOURCES_MEM,
> +			gettext_noop("Rollbacks greater than this size are done lazily"),
> +			NULL,
> +			GUC_UNIT_MB
> +		},
> +		&rollback_overflow_size,
> +		64, 0, MAX_KILOBYTES,
> +		NULL, NULL, NULL
> +	},
rollback_foreground_size? rollback_background_size? I don't think
overflow is particularly clear.
> @@ -1612,6 +1635,85 @@ FinishPreparedTransaction(const char *gid, bool isCommit)
>  
>  	MyLockedGxact = NULL;
>  
> +	/*
> +	 * Perform undo actions, if there are undologs for this transaction. We
> +	 * need to perform undo actions while we are still in transaction. Never
> +	 * push rollbacks of temp tables to undo worker.
> +	 */
> +	for (i = 0; i < UndoPersistenceLevels; i++)
> +	{
This should be in a separate function. And it'd be good if more code
between this and ApplyUndoActions() would be shared.
> +	/*
> +	 * Here, we just detect whether there are any pending undo actions so that
> +	 * we can skip releasing the locks during abort transaction.  We don't
> +	 * release the locks till we execute undo actions otherwise, there is a
> +	 * risk of deadlock.
> +	 */
> +	SetUndoActionsInfo();
This function name is so generic that it gives the reader very little
information about why it's called here (and in other similar places).
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fabrízio de Royes Mello | 2019-05-21 17:27:01 | Re: Refresh Publication takes hours and doesn´t finish | 
| Previous Message | PegoraroF10 | 2019-05-21 17:16:47 | Re: Refresh Publication takes hours and doesn´t finish |