Re: Conflict Detection and Resolution

On Fri, Jul 5, 2024 at 2:23 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 5, 2024 at 11:58 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 5:37 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > > So, the situation will be the same. We can even
> > > > > decide to spill the data to files if the decision is that we need to
> > > > > wait to avoid network buffer-fill situations. But note that the wait
> > > > > in apply worker has consequences that the subscriber won't be able to
> > > > > confirm the flush position and publisher won't be able to vacuum the
> > > > > dead rows and we won't be remove WAL as well. Last time when we
> > > > > discussed the delay_apply feature, we decided not to proceed because
> > > > > of such issues. This is the reason I proposed a cap on wait time.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, spilling to file or cap on the wait time should help, and as I
> > > > said above maybe a parallel apply worker can also help.
> > > >
> > >
> > > It is not clear to me how a parallel apply worker can help in this
> > > case. Can you elaborate on what you have in mind?
> >
> > If we decide to wait at commit time, and before starting to apply if
> > we already see a remote commit_ts clock is ahead, then if we apply
> > such transactions using the parallel worker, wouldn't it solve the
> > issue of the network buffer congestion? Now the apply worker can move
> > ahead and fetch new transactions from the buffer as our waiting
> > transaction will not block it. I understand that if this transaction
> > is going to wait at commit then any future transaction that we are
> > going to fetch might also going to wait again because if the previous
> > transaction committed before is in the future then the subsequent
> > transaction committed after this must also be in future so eventually
> > that will also go to some another parallel worker and soon we end up
> > consuming all the parallel worker if the clock skew is large. So I
> > won't say this will resolve the problem and we would still have to
> > fall back to the spilling to the disk but that's just in the worst
> > case when the clock skew is really huge. In most cases which is due
> > to slight clock drift by the time we apply the medium to large size
> > transaction, the local clock should be able to catch up the remote
> > commit_ts and we might not have to wait in most of the cases.
> >
>
> Yeah, this is possible but even if go with the spilling logic at first
> it should work for all cases. If we get some complaints then we can
> explore executing such transactions by parallel apply workers.
> Personally, I am of the opinion that clock synchronization should be
> handled outside the database system via network time protocols like
> NTP. Still, we can have some simple solution to inform users about the
> clock_skew.

Yeah, that makes sense, in the first version we can have a simple
solution and we can further improvise it based on the feedback.

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