Re: [PATCH] Reuse Workers and Replication Slots during Logical Replication

From: Shlok Kyal <shlok(dot)kyal(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Melih Mutlu <m(dot)melihmutlu(at)gmail(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Wei Wang (Fujitsu)" <wangw(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, "Yu Shi (Fujitsu)" <shiy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Reuse Workers and Replication Slots during Logical Replication
Date: 2024-01-10 09:29:22
Message-ID: CANhcyEW3CJmaRw-O4cM=FQnF06po=puAA_c7+nWo5Aeu593g8A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

This patch is not applying on the HEAD. Please rebase and share the
updated patch.

Thanks and Regards
Shlok Kyal

On Wed, 10 Jan 2024 at 14:55, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Oops - now with attachments
>
> On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 5:56 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Melih,
>>
>> Last week we revisited your implementation of design#2. Vignesh rebased it, and then made a few other changes.
>>
>> PSA v28*
>>
>> The patch changes include:
>> * changed the logic slightly by setting recv_immediately(new variable), if this variable is set the main apply worker loop will not wait in this case.
>> * setting the relation state to ready immediately if there are no more incremental changes to be synced.
>> * receive the incremental changes if applicable and set the relation state to ready without waiting.
>> * reuse the worker if the worker is free before trying to start a new table sync worker
>> * restarting the tablesync worker only after wal_retrieve_retry_interval
>>
>> ~
>>
>> FWIW, we just wanted to share with you the performance measurements seen using this design#2 patch set:
>>
>> ======
>>
>> RESULTS (not busy tests)
>>
>> ------
>> 10 empty tables
>> 2w 4w 8w 16w
>> HEAD: 125 119 140 133
>> HEAD+v28*: 92 93 123 134
>> %improvement: 27% 22% 12% -1%
>> ------
>> 100 empty tables
>> 2w 4w 8w 16w
>> HEAD: 1037 843 1109 1155
>> HEAD+v28*: 591 625 2616 2569
>> %improvement: 43% 26% -136% -122%
>> ------
>> 1000 empty tables
>> 2w 4w 8w 16w
>> HEAD: 15874 10047 9919 10338
>> HEAD+v28*: 33673 12199 9094 9896
>> %improvement: -112% -21% 8% 4%
>> ------
>> 2000 empty tables
>> 2w 4w 8w 16w
>> HEAD: 45266 24216 19395 19820
>> HEAD+v28*: 88043 21550 21668 22607
>> %improvement: -95% 11% -12% -14%
>>
>> ~~~
>>
>> Note - the results were varying quite a lot in comparison to the HEAD
>> e.g. HEAD results are very consistent, but the v28* results observed are not
>> HEAD 1000 (2w): 15861, 15777, 16007, 15950, 15886, 15740, 15846, 15740, 15908, 15940
>> v28* 1000 (2w): 34214, 13679, 8792, 33289, 31976, 56071, 57042, 56163, 34058, 11969
>>
>> ------
>> Kind Regards,
>> Peter Smith.
>> Fujitsu Australia

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2024-01-10 09:31:30 Re: Random pg_upgrade test failure on drongo
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2024-01-10 09:26:36 Re: Relation bulk write facility