| From: | "shiy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <shiy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "wangw(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <wangw(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, "houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fabrice Chapuis <fabrice636861(at)gmail(dot)com>, Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | RE: Logical replication timeout problem |
| Date: | 2023-01-30 03:36:59 |
| Message-ID: | OSZPR01MB631040D5A14BE71AB67317B9FDD39@OSZPR01MB6310.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Jan 29, 2023 3:41 PM wangw(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com <wangw(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
>
> I tested a mix transaction of transactional and non-transactional messages on
> the current HEAD and reproduced the timeout problem. I think this result is OK.
> Because when decoding a transaction, non-transactional changes are processed
> directly and the function WalSndKeepaliveIfNecessary is called, while
> transactional changes are cached and processed after decoding. After decoding,
> only transactional changes will be processed (in the function
> ReorderBufferProcessTXN), so the timeout problem will still be reproduced.
>
> After applying the v8 patch, the test mentioned above didn't reproduce the
> timeout problem (Attach this test script 'test_with_nontransactional.sh').
>
> Attach the new patch.
>
Thanks for updating the patch. Here is a comment.
In update_progress_txn_cb_wrapper(), it looks like we need to reset
changes_count to 0 after calling OutputPluginUpdateProgress(), otherwise
OutputPluginUpdateProgress() will always be called after 100 changes.
Regards,
Shi yu
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | vignesh C | 2023-01-30 03:50:10 | Re: Deadlock between logrep apply worker and tablesync worker |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2023-01-30 03:21:05 | Re: Time delayed LR (WAS Re: logical replication restrictions) |