From: | "wangw(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <wangw(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, "shiy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <shiy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, "houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | RE: Perform streaming logical transactions by background workers and parallel apply |
Date: | 2022-07-07 03:45:31 |
Message-ID: | OS3PR01MB627579105668A66BE06F365C9E839@OS3PR01MB6275.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 17:44 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
Thanks for your comments.
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 12:13 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > ======
> >
> > 1.2 doc/src/sgml/protocol.sgml - Protocol constants
> >
> > Previously I wrote that since there are protocol changes here,
> > shouldn’t there also be some corresponding LOGICALREP_PROTO_XXX
> > constants and special checking added in the worker.c?
> >
> > But you said [1 comment #6] you think it is OK because...
> >
> > IMO, I still disagree with the reply. The fact is that the protocol
> > *has* been changed, so IIUC that is precisely the reason for having
> > those protocol constants.
> >
> > e.g I am guessing you might assign the new one somewhere here:
> > --
> > server_version = walrcv_server_version(LogRepWorkerWalRcvConn);
> > options.proto.logical.proto_version =
> > server_version >= 150000 ?
> LOGICALREP_PROTO_TWOPHASE_VERSION_NUM :
> > server_version >= 140000 ?
> LOGICALREP_PROTO_STREAM_VERSION_NUM :
> > LOGICALREP_PROTO_VERSION_NUM;
> > --
> >
> > And then later you would refer to this new protocol version (instead
> > of the server version) when calling to the apply_handle_stream_abort
> > function.
> >
> > ======
> >
>
> One point related to this that occurred to me is how it will behave if
> the publisher is of version >=16 whereas the subscriber is of versions
> <=15? Won't in that case publisher sends the new fields but
> subscribers won't be reading those which may cause some problems.
Makes sense. Fixed this point.
As Peter-san suggested, I added a new protocol macro
LOGICALREP_PROTO_STREAM_PARALLEL_VERSION_NUM.
This new macro marks the version that supports apply background worker (it
means we will read abort_lsn and abort_time). And the publisher sends abort_lsn
and abort_time fields only if subscriber will read them. (see function
logicalrep_write_stream_abort)
The new patches were attached in [1].
Regards,
Wang wei
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | wangw.fnst@fujitsu.com | 2022-07-07 03:46:25 | RE: Perform streaming logical transactions by background workers and parallel apply |
Previous Message | wangw.fnst@fujitsu.com | 2022-07-07 03:44:04 | RE: Perform streaming logical transactions by background workers and parallel apply |