Re: Force streaming every change in logical decoding - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: Force streaming every change in logical decoding
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1L8Q9M+o-Nnu=MfPUiAd4Br=wrC1OVNhbK0ajYR6LeGNA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Force streaming every change in logical decoding  (Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 10:52 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 5:29 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 2:15 PM shiy.fnst@fujitsu.com
> > <shiy.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Please see the attached patch. I also fix Peter's comments[1]. The GUC name and
> > > design are still under discussion, so I didn't modify them.
> > >
> >
> > Let me summarize the discussion on name and design till now. As per my
> > understanding, we have three requirements: (a) In publisher, stream
> > each change of transaction instead of waiting till
> > logical_decoding_work_mem or commit; this will help us to reduce the
> > test timings of current and future tests for replication of
> > in-progress transactions; (b) In publisher, serialize each change
> > instead of waiting till logical_decoding_work_mem; this can help
> > reduce the test time of tests related to serialization of changes in
> > logical decoding; (c) In subscriber, during parallel apply for
> > in-progress transactions (a new feature being discussed at [1]) allow
> > the system to switch to serialize mode (no more space in shared memory
> > queue between leader and parallel apply worker either due to a
> > parallel worker being busy or waiting on some lock) while sending
> > changes.
> >
> > Having a GUC that controls these actions/features will allow us to
> > write tests with shorter duration and better predictability as
> > otherwise, they require a lot of changes. Apart from tests, these also
> > help to easily debug the required code. So they fit the Developer
> > Options category of GUC [2].
> >
> > We have discussed three different ways to provide GUC for these
> > features. (1) Have separate GUCs like force_server_stream_mode,
> > force_server_serialize_mode, force_client_serialize_mode (we can use
> > different names for these) for each of these; (2) Have two sets of
> > GUCs for server and client. We can have logical_decoding_mode with
> > values as 'stream' and 'serialize' for the server and then
> > logical_apply_serialize = true/false for the client. (3) Have one GUC
> > like logical_replication_mode with values as 'server_stream',
> > 'server_serialize', 'client_serialize'.
> >
> > The names used here are tentative mainly to explain each of the
> > options, we can use different names once we decide among the above.
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> I think option 2 makes sense because stream/serialize are two related
> options and both are dependent on the same parameter
> (logical_decoding_work_mem) so having a single know is logical.  And
> another GUC for serializing logical apply.
>

Thanks for your input. Sawada-San, others, any preferences/suggestions?

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: Perform streaming logical transactions by background workers and parallel apply
Next
From: "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)"
Date:
Subject: RE: Force streaming every change in logical decoding