Re: zstd compression for pg_dump

On 4/1/23 02:28, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 01, 2023 at 02:11:12AM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> On 4/1/23 01:16, Justin Pryzby wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 06:23:26PM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>>>> On 3/27/23 19:28, Justin Pryzby wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 03:43:31AM +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/16/23 05:50, Justin Pryzby wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 12:48:13PM -0800, Jacob Champion wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 10:59 AM Jacob Champion <jchampion(at)timescale(dot)com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I did some smoke testing against zstd's GitHub release on Windows. To
>>>>>>>>> build against it, I had to construct an import library, and put that
>>>>>>>>> and the DLL into the `lib` folder expected by the MSVC scripts...
>>>>>>>>> which makes me wonder if I've chosen a harder way than necessary?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It looks like pg_dump's meson.build is missing dependencies on zstd
>>>>>>>> (meson couldn't find the headers in the subproject without them).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I saw that this was added for LZ4, but I hadn't added it for zstd since
>>>>>>> I didn't run into an issue without it. Could you check that what I've
>>>>>>> added works for your case ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Parallel zstd dumps seem to work as expected, in that the resulting
>>>>>>>>> pg_restore output is identical to uncompressed dumps and nothing
>>>>>>>>> explodes. I haven't inspected the threading implementation for safety
>>>>>>>>> yet, as you mentioned.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hm. Best I can tell, the CloneArchive() machinery is supposed to be
>>>>>>>> handling safety for this, by isolating each thread's state. I don't feel
>>>>>>>> comfortable pronouncing this new addition safe or not, because I'm not
>>>>>>>> sure I understand what the comments in the format-specific _Clone()
>>>>>>>> callbacks are saying yet.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My line of reasoning for unix is that pg_dump forks before any calls to
>>>>>>> zstd. Nothing zstd does ought to affect the pg_dump layer. But that
>>>>>>> doesn't apply to pg_dump under windows. This is an opened question. If
>>>>>>> there's no solid answer, I could disable/ignore the option (maybe only
>>>>>>> under windows).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I may be missing something, but why would the patch affect this? Why
>>>>>> would it even affect safety of the parallel dump? And I don't see any
>>>>>> changes to the clone stuff ...
>>>>>
>>>>> zstd supports using threads during compression, with -Z zstd:workers=N.
>>>>> When unix forks, the child processes can't do anything to mess up the
>>>>> state of the parent processes.
>>>>>
>>>>> But windows pg_dump uses threads instead of forking, so it seems
>>>>> possible that the pg_dump -j threads that then spawn zstd threads could
>>>>> "leak threads" and break the main thread. I suspect there's no issue,
>>>>> but we still ought to verify that before declaring it safe.
>>>>
>>>> OK. I don't have access to a Windows machine so I can't test that. Is it
>>>> possible to disable the zstd threading, until we figure this out?
>>>
>>> I think that's what's best. I made it issue a warning if "workers" was
>>> specified. It could also be an error, or just ignored.
>>>
>>> I considered disabling workers only for windows, but realized that I
>>> haven't tested with threads myself - my local zstd package is compiled
>>> without threading, and I remember having some issue recompiling it with
>>> threading. Jacob's recipe for using meson wraps works well, but it
>>> still seems better to leave it as a future feature. I used that recipe
>>> to enabled zstd with threading on CI (except for linux/autoconf).
>>
>> +1 to disable this if we're unsure it works correctly. I agree it's
>> better to just error out if workers are requested - I rather dislike
>> when a tool just ignores an explicit parameter. And AFAICS it's what
>> zstd does too, when someone requests workers on incompatible build.
>>
>> FWIW I've been thinking about this a bit more and I don't quite see why
>> would the threading cause issues (except for Windows). I forgot
>> pg_basebackup already supports zstd, including the worker threading, so
>> why would it work there and not in pg_dump? Sure, pg_basebackup is not
>> parallel, but with separate pg_dump processes that shouldn't be an issue
>> (although I'm not sure when zstd creates threads).
>
> There's no concern at all except under windows (because on windows
> pg_dump -j is implemented using threads rather than forking).
> Especially since zstd:workers is already allowed in the basebackup
> backend process.
>

If there are no concerns, why disable it outside Windows? I don't have a
good idea how beneficial the multi-threaded compression is, so I can't
quite judge the risk/benefits tradeoff.

regards

--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company