From: | shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Fix premature xmin advancement during fast forward decoding |
Date: | 2025-04-23 06:31:26 |
Message-ID: | CAJpy0uDiozoxBwOb01QVTKvfMZ9GRy4PF1DqC56ULPhEt8_NxQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 12:36 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
<houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> To fix this, I think we can allow the base snapshot to be built during fast
> forward decoding, as implemented in the patch 0001 (We already built base
> snapshot in fast-forward mode for logical message in logicalmsg_decode()).
The idea and code looks okay to me and the performance impact is also
not that huge.
IIUC, fast_forward decoding mode is used only in two cases. 1)
pg_replication_slot_advance and 2) in upgrade flow to check if there
are any pending WAL changes which are not yet replicated. See
'binary_upgrade_logical_slot_has_caught_up'-->'LogicalReplicationSlotHasPendingWal'.
It seems like this change will not have any negative impact in the
upgrade flow as well (in terms of performance and anything else).
Thoughts?
>
> Moreover, I conducted a basic test[2] to test the patch's impact, noting that
> advancing the slot incurs roughly a 4% increase in processing time after
> applying the patch, which appears to be acceptable. Additionally, the cost
> associated with building the snapshot via SnapBuildBuildSnapshot() did not show
> up in the profile. Therefore, I think it's reasonable to refrain from
> further optimization at this stage.
I agree on this.
thanks
Shveta
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2025-04-23 06:31:37 | Re: long-standing data loss bug in initial sync of logical replication |
Previous Message | Peter Smith | 2025-04-23 06:07:04 | Re: Logical Replication of sequences |