Re: Logical Replication of sequences

From: shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, Shlok Kyal <shlok(dot)kyal(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Hou, Zhijie/侯 志杰 <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org>, shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Logical Replication of sequences
Date: 2024-09-26 05:37:25
Message-ID: CAJpy0uBnVZdRLzxRELX6FRGbSidXQSAp-CZnmr48Oz03-igMCg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 9:36 AM vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 at 11:54, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 at 08:33, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Vignesh, Here are my only review comments for the latest patch set.
> >
> > Thanks, these issues have been addressed in the updated version.
> > Additionally, I have fixed the pgindent problems that were reported
> > and included another advantage of this design in the file header of
> > the sequencesync file.
>
> The patch was not applied on top of head, here is a rebased version of
> the patches.
> I have also removed an invalidation which was not required for
> sequences and a typo.
>

Thank You for the patches. I would like to understand srsublsn and
page_lsn more. Please see the scenario below:

I have a sequence:
CREATE SEQUENCE myseq0 INCREMENT 5 START 100;

After refresh on sub:
postgres=# ALTER SUBSCRIPTION sub1 REFRESH PUBLICATION SEQUENCES;
ALTER SUBSCRIPTION

postgres=# select * from pg_subscription_rel;
srsubid | srrelid | srsubstate | srsublsn
---------+---------+------------+-----------
16385 | 16384 | r | 0/152F380 -->pub's page_lsn

postgres=# select * from pg_sequence_state('myseq0');
page_lsn | last_value | log_cnt | is_called
-----------+------------+---------+-----------
0/152D830 | 105 | 31 | t -->(I am assuming 0/152D830 is
local page_lsn corresponding to value-=105)

Now I assume that *only* after doing next_wal for 31 times, page_lsn
shall change. But I observe strange behaviour

After running nextval on sub for 7 times:
postgres=# select * from pg_sequence_state('myseq0');
page_lsn | last_value | log_cnt | is_called
-----------+------------+---------+-----------
0/152D830 | 140 | 24 | t -->correct

After running nextval on sub for 15 more times:
postgres=# select * from pg_sequence_state('myseq0');
page_lsn | last_value | log_cnt | is_called
-----------+------------+---------+-----------
0/152D830 | 215 | 9 | t -->correct
(1 row)

Now after running it 6 more times:
postgres=# select * from pg_sequence_state('myseq0');
page_lsn | last_value | log_cnt | is_called
-----------+------------+---------+-----------
0/152D990 | 245 | 28 | t --> how??

last_value increased in the expected way (6*5), but page_lsn changed
and log_cnt changed before we could complete the remaining runs as
well. Not sure why??

Now if I do refresh again:

postgres=# ALTER SUBSCRIPTION sub1 REFRESH PUBLICATION SEQUENCES;
ALTER SUBSCRIPTION

postgres=# select * from pg_subscription_rel;
srsubid | srrelid | srsubstate | srsublsn
---------+---------+------------+-----------
16385 | 16384 | r | 0/152F380-->pub's page_lsn, same as old one.

postgres=# select * from pg_sequence_state('myseq0');
page_lsn | last_value | log_cnt | is_called
-----------+------------+---------+-----------
0/152DDB8 | 105 | 31 | t
(1 row)

Now, what is this page_lsn = 0/152DDB8? Should it be the one
corresponding to last_value=105 and thus shouldn't it match the
previous value of 0/152D830?

thanks
Shveta

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ashutosh Bapat 2024-09-26 05:45:06 Re: meson and check-tests
Previous Message Yugo NAGATA 2024-09-26 05:21:27 Re: CREATE INDEX regression in 17 RC1 or expected behavior?