> 20 сент. 2021 г., в 09:41, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> написал(а):
>
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 10:38:00PM +0500, Andrey Borodin wrote:
>> --- a/src/backend/access/transam/twophase.c
>> +++ b/src/backend/access/transam/twophase.c
>> @@ -459,14 +459,15 @@ MarkAsPreparingGuts(GlobalTransaction gxact, TransactionId xid, const char *gid,
>> proc->pgprocno = gxact->pgprocno;
>> SHMQueueElemInit(&(proc->links));
>> proc->waitStatus = PROC_WAIT_STATUS_OK;
>> - /* We set up the gxact's VXID as InvalidBackendId/XID */
>> - proc->lxid = (LocalTransactionId) xid;
>> + /* We set up the gxact's VXID as real for CIC purposes */
>> + proc->lxid = MyProc->lxid;
>
> This breaks the case where the server restarted after PREPARE TRANSACTION.
> MyProc->lxid is 0 in the startup process, and LocalTransactionIdIsValid(0) is
> false. I'm attaching a test case addition. Can you repair this?
Yup. Indeed, that's a bug. Root cause it that GetLockConflicts() does not try to extract real xid from gxact's PGPROC,
whilevxid is not valid.
I see two ways to solve this:
1. Always set valid vxid, but fake 'vxid from xid' for gxact.
2. Teach GetLockConflicts() to use xid if vxid is invalid.
Both ways lead to identical GetLockConflicts() output.
PFA implementation of approach 1.
>> proc->xid = xid;
>> Assert(proc->xmin == InvalidTransactionId);
>> proc->delayChkpt = false;
>> proc->statusFlags = 0;
>> proc->pid = 0;
>> - proc->backendId = InvalidBackendId;
>> + /* May be backendId of startup process */
>> + proc->backendId = MyBackendId;
>
> Incidentally, MyBackendId of startup process depends on other facts. When
> using hot standby, InitRecoveryTransactionEnvironment() sets MyBackendId=1.
> Otherwise, including clean startup of a non-standby node, MyBackendId is
> InvalidBackendId. This may be harmless. I didn't know about it.
I think we should avoid using backendId during startup. The backend itself has nothing to do with the transaction.
> On Tue, Sep 07, 2021 at 11:45:15PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 29, 2021 at 11:38:03PM +0500, Andrey Borodin wrote:
>>>> 29 авг. 2021 г., в 23:09, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> написал(а):
>>>>>> It seems like it's going to add a substantial amount of work even when
>>>>>> no 2PC xacts are involved?
>>>>> Only if 2PCs are enabled.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think that's good enough. Plenty of systems have 2PC enabled but very
>>>> few if any transactions end up as 2PC ones.
>>
>>> Best optimisation I can imagine here is to gather all vxids with unknown xids and search for them in one call to
TwoPhaseGetXidByVXid()with one LWLockAcquire(TwoPhaseStateLock, LW_SHARED).
>>>
>>> Does it worth the complexity?
>>
>> https://www.postgresql.org/search/?m=1&q=TwoPhaseStateLock&l=&d=-1&s=r
>> suggests this is the first postgresql.org discussion of TwoPhaseStateLock as a
>> bottleneck. Nonetheless, if Andres Freund finds it's worth the complexity,
>> then I'm content with it. I'd certainly expect some performance benefit.
>> Andres, what do you think?
>
> A few more benefits (beyond lock contention) come to mind:
>
> - Looking at the three VirtualXactLock() callers, waiting for final
> disposition of prepared transactions is necessary for
> WaitForLockersMultiple(), disadvantageous for WaitForOlderSnapshots(), and
> dead code for ResolveRecoveryConflictWithVirtualXIDs(). In
> WaitForOlderSnapshots(), PREPARE is as good as COMMIT/ABORT, because a
> prepared transaction won't do further database reads. Waiting on the
> prepared transaction there could give CIC an arbitrarily-long, needless
> delay. ResolveRecoveryConflictWithVirtualXIDs() will never wait on a
> prepared transaction, because prepared transactions hold no locks during
> recovery. (If a prepared transaction originally acquired
> AccessExclusiveLock, the startup process holds that lock on its behalf.)
> Coordinating the XID search at a higher layer would let us change
> WaitForLockersMultiple() without changing the others.
BTW WaitForOlderSnapshots() is used in ATExecDetachPartitionFinalize(). Probably, we could indicate to
VirtualXactLock()if we want to wait on 2PC or not. Does it make sense?
>
>
> - v13 WaitPreparedXact() experiences starvation when a steady stream of
> prepared transactions have the same VXID. Since VXID reuse entails
> reconnecting, starvation will be unnoticeable in systems that follow best
> practices around connection lifespan. The 2021-08-23 patch version didn't
> have that hazard.
I think the probability of such a stream is abysmal. You not only need a stream of 2PC with the same vxid, but a stream
ofoverlapping 2PC with the same vxid. And the most critical thing that can happen - CIC waiting for the stream to
becameone-2PC-at-a-time for a moment.
Thanks!
Best regards, Andrey Borodin.
