On 2013-10-28 12:04:01 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 8:14 AM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > I wonder if this is isn't maybe sufficient. Yes, it can deadlock, but
> > that's already the case for VACUUM FULLs of system tables, although less
> > likely. And it will be detected/handled.
> > There's one more snag though, we currently allow CLUSTER system_table;
> > in an existing transaction. I think that'd have to be disallowed.
>
> It wouldn't bother me too much to restrict CLUSTER system_table by
> PreventTransactionChain() at wal_level = logical, but obviously it
> would be nicer if we *didn't* have to do that.
>
> In general, I don't think waiting on an XID is sufficient because a
> process can acquire a heavyweight lock without having an XID. Perhaps
> use the VXID instead?
But decoding doesn't care about transactions that haven't "used" an XID
yet (since that means they haven't modified the catalog), so that
shouldn't be problematic.
> One thought I had about waiting for decoding to catch up is that you
> might do it before acquiring the lock. Of course, you then have a
> problem if you get behind again before acquiring the lock. It's
> tempting to adopt the solution we used for RangeVarGetRelidExtended,
> namely: wait for catchup without the lock, acquire the lock, see
> whether we're still caught up if so great else release lock and loop.
> But there's probably too much starvation risk to get away with that.
I think we'd pretty much always starve in that case. It'd be different
if we could detect that there weren't any writes to the table
inbetween. I can see doing that using a locking hack like autovac uses,
but brr, that'd be ugly.
> On the whole, I'm leaning toward thinking that the other solution
> (recording the old-to-new CTID mappings generated by CLUSTER to the
> extent that they are needed) is probably more elegant.
I personally still think that the "wide cmin/cmax" solution is *much*
more elegant, simpler and actually can be used for other things than
logical decoding.
Since you don't seem to agree I am going to write a prototype using such
a mapping to see how it will look though.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
-- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services
