From: | vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Subject: | Re: persist logical slots to disk during shutdown checkpoint |
Date: | 2023-08-25 12:10:36 |
Message-ID: | CALDaNm2BboFuFVYxyzP4wkv7=8+_TwsD+ugyGhtibTSF4m4XRg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 19 Aug 2023 at 11:53, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> It's entirely possible for a logical slot to have a confirmed_flush
> LSN higher than the last value saved on disk while not being marked as
> dirty. It's currently not a problem to lose that value during a clean
> shutdown / restart cycle but to support the upgrade of logical slots
> [1] (see latest patch at [2]), we seem to rely on that value being
> properly persisted to disk. During the upgrade, we need to verify that
> all the data prior to shudown_checkpoint for the logical slots has
> been consumed, otherwise, the downstream may miss some data. Now, to
> ensure the same, we are planning to compare the confirm_flush LSN
> location with the latest shudown_checkpoint location which means that
> the confirm_flush LSN should be updated after restart.
>
> I think this is inefficient even without an upgrade because, after the
> restart, this may lead to decoding some data again. Say, we process
> some transactions for which we didn't send anything downstream (the
> changes got filtered) but the confirm_flush LSN is updated due to
> keepalives. As we don't flush the latest value of confirm_flush LSN,
> it may lead to processing the same changes again.
I was able to test and verify that we were not processing the same
changes again.
Note: The 0001-Add-logs-to-skip-transaction-filter-insert-operation.patch
has logs to print if a decode transaction is skipped and also a log to
mention if any operation is filtered.
The test.sh script has the steps for a) setting up logical replication
for a table b) perform insert on table that need to be published (this
will be replicated to the subscriber) c) perform insert on a table
that will not be published (this insert will be filtered, it will not
be replicated) d) sleep for 5 seconds e) stop the server f) start the
server
I used the following steps, do the following in HEAD:
a) Apply 0001-Add-logs-to-skip-transaction-filter-insert-operation.patch
patch in Head and build the binaries b) execute test.sh c) view N1.log
file to see that the insert operations were filtered again by seeing
the following logs:
LOG: Filter insert for table tbl2
...
===restart===
...
LOG: Skipping transaction 0/156AD10 as start decode at is greater 0/156AE40
...
LOG: Filter insert for table tbl2
We can see that the insert operations on tbl2 which was filtered
before server was stopped is again filtered after restart too in HEAD.
Lets see that the same changes were not processed again with patch:
a) Apply v4-0001-Persist-to-disk-logical-slots-during-a-shutdown-c.patch
from [1] also apply
0001-Add-logs-to-skip-transaction-filter-insert-operation.patch patch
and build the binaries b) execute test.sh c) view N1.log file to see
that the insert operations were skipped after restart of server by
seeing the following logs:
LOG: Filter insert for table tbl2
...
===restart===
...
Skipping transaction 0/156AD10 as start decode at is greater 0/156AFB0
...
Skipping transaction 0/156AE80 as start decode at is greater 0/156AFB0
We can see that the insert operations on tbl2 are not processed again
after restart with the patch.
Regards,
Vignesh
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
test.sh | text/x-sh | 2.4 KB |
0001-Add-logs-to-skip-transaction-filter-insert-operation.patch | application/octet-stream | 1.6 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2023-08-25 12:22:36 | Re: list of acknowledgments for PG16 |
Previous Message | David Geier | 2023-08-25 12:01:23 | Re: Let's make PostgreSQL multi-threaded |